Are There Universal Aspects of Aesthetic Preference?

Yannie Heng
WC: 3761
 The original title I submitted was Are there universal aspects of aesthetic

perception? This title was written because I wanted to investigate universal aspects

of aesthetic preference that arose specifically from the process of perception. I

realized as I was researching for and writing this essay that all of my arguments

justified the universality of aesthetic preferences, and just used the process of

perception to defend my arguments. Moreover, the definition of aesthetic

perception is not widely agreed upon, and also typically involves the use of other

cognitive factors, instead of just perception itself. Thus, I felt like it would make

more sense for my question to be about preference, and then justify my claims using

the narrower scope of perception.

Visual art has been an incredibly prominent aspect of human culture since

the formation of its species. Humans have manifested their creativity in so many

ways, expressing their thoughts and ideas through a wide variety of different

mediums. The appreciation of art is incredibly subjective, since history, culture, and

value judgments of large groups of people are essential factors in determining the

importance and appeal of art. Even though there are a myriad of different styles of

artwork that are widely appreciated, there are certain works and artists that are

more highly regarded than others. This suggests that not all assessments of beauty

are subjective; there could be some aspects of art that make them more appealing

than others.
 Aesthetics, though often connected with art, is its own separate idea.

Aesthetics focuses on the properties of art and other objects, relating it to the

experience of beauty. It is more focused on individual preferences and sensory

perception instead of the historical and cultural factors that are typically factored

into the consideration of art. There is an emphasis on the individuals own

judgment, instead of the evaluations of experts. Although art typically has aesthetic

value, it is not a prerequisite, as it can serve a wide variety of functions besides

conveying beauty. The opposite is true for aesthetics: clothes, websites, and natural

objects such as flowers or mountains all can have aesthetically pleasing elements to

them but would not necessarily be considered art. Since most artwork, however,

have aesthetically pleasing elements to them, an understanding of the mechanisms

behind aesthetic judgment can provide more insight into the appreciation of visual

art. Thus, this essay will focus on aesthetics, instead of art, because this domain

focuses specifically on individual experiences instead of other cultural factors. Since

this topic is incredibly complex, and aesthetic pleasure and appreciation can be

found in many different types of mediums, this essay will only focus on the

aesthetics of two-dimensional artwork.

There seem to works of art that are more highly valued than others, which

suggests that there must be aspects in aesthetic appraisal that are universal. In the

essay On The Standard of Taste (1757), the Scottish philosopher David Hume argues

that since humans possess the same biological constitution from generation to

generation, there must be some components of aesthetics that are universally

pleasing, which is why certain works of art and literature are appreciated more than
others. He believes that people have different artistic preferences and opinions

about beauty because they have different abilities to discern what is truly beautiful,

not because beauty is subjective. Studies have shown that aesthetic appraisal

involves the integration of more universal processes such as vision with other

cognitive functions that are subject to individual differences, such as emotion,

knowledge, and memory (Cattaneo et al., 2014; Cela-Conde et al., 2004). The

integration of all of these overlapping functions, some universal and others

influenced by individual experience, is what results in the wide range of works of art

that are highly regarded. In order to discuss the universal aspects of aesthetic

preference, this essay will focus specifically on aesthetic perception instead of other

cognitive processes. Sensory processes, such as vision, are the least variable

between humans, especially compared to other processes such as emotion, memory,

or knowledge. Therefore, the determination of universal aspects of aesthetic

preference should be approached from this perspective. When aesthetic preference

is discussed in this essay, it will specifically refer to the processes resulting from

perception alone, instead of preferences arising from other factors. Since the major

trait that links humans together is their biological makeup, it is vital that the

neurological mechanisms of aesthetic perception be studied in order to gain insight

into the universal aspects that arise from these cognitions. Thus, the purpose of this

essay is threefold: to describe the biological mechanisms that are involved in

aesthetic perception, to highlight the aspects of aesthetics are more preferable

because of these mechanisms, and to posit several explanations for these

preferences. There are universal aspects of aesthetic preference that are caused by
earlier perceptual processes, which cause humans to have preferences for certain

aspects of art such as colour and composition.

The perception of beauty results in increased brain activity in the

dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which suggests that aesthetic perception is

multifaceted and linked with other cognitions. In a study by Cela-Conde et al.

(2004), participants perceived various types of two-dimensional pieces of art during

magnetoencephalography imaging. The authors discovered that when the

participants perceived beautiful stimuli, the left prefrontal dorsolateral cortex was

activated. A later study by Cupchik, Vartanian, Crawley, and Mikulis (2009)

produced similar results, as participants displayed more activation in their

dorsolateral prefrontal cortex when they viewed aesthetic stimuli than when they

perceived pragmatic objects. The prefrontal dorsolateral cortex is an area of the

brain that connects perception to other cognitive functions such as working

memory (Petrides, 2000) and decision making (Krawczyk, 2002). This indicates that

aesthetic perception is linked very closely to other cognitions that have more

individual variability. Cela-Conde et al. (2004) suggest that the activation of the

prefrontal cortex shows that aesthetic perception is tied to working memory.

Cupchik et al. (2009) add to this explanation and suggest that this activation could

also show that aesthetic perception is linked to self-referential processes and the

evaluation of information that was internally generated. Thus, making value

judgments of aesthetic stimuli will frequently be influenced by individual biases and

prior experiences, since the mere act of perceiving aesthetic works is connected to

other cognitions such as memory and knowledge.

 Even though aesthetic perception can be influenced by other cognitions, it

can also be relatively automatic, which shows there are also more universal aspects

of aesthetic preference. In a study by Vessel, Starr, and Rubin (2012), participants

who viewed different types of beautiful images displayed increased activation in the

anterior medial prefrontal cortex, the caudate nucleus, and striatum. This shows

that the evaluation of aesthetic stimuli has an emotional component. However, they

also observed a second group of activations in the posterior cortical regions, such as

the parahippocampal cortex, left inferior temporal sulcus, and superior temporal

sulcus, among other regions, when the subject perceived artwork that was pleasing.

Using these results, the authors suggest that there is also an aspect of aesthetic

perception that is fairly automatic, and that is based upon semantic and sensory

processing. Thus, the perception of beauty involves several different cognitions,

including memory, self-referential processes, and knowledge, but is also affected by

relatively automatic processes. This suggests that aesthetic perception is a multi-

layered process that involves both universal factors and those that are more subject

to individual differences.

Aesthetic perception, which is multilayered and influenced by many

components of cognition, is also affected by different stages of vision. There are

three levels of visual processing: early, intermediate, and late vision. Early vision

processes simple elements from the environment such as colour, shape, and

luminance. Intermediate vision combines elements of early vision together to form

coherence, and late vision attaches memories to these objects and decides what to

scrutinize, thus giving meaning to what is seen (Livingstone & Hubel, 1987). The
early and intermediate stages of vision, which process the form of aesthetic works,

are relatively automatic. Chatterjee (2003) argues that universal elements of

aesthetic preference, such as colour or composition, are likely to be found in early

and intermediate vision. In contrast, late vision, which is affected by other cognitive

components, gives rise to subjective opinions (Chatterjee, 2011). Thus, there are

both universal and subjective opinions of aesthetic preference, which are influenced

by different stages of vision.

These different stages of vision impact humans aesthetic preference. A study

by Cupchick and Berlyne (1979) shows that the different stages of vision impact

humans aesthetic preference. In their study, they showed subjects various paintings

for times that ranged from 50-5000 msec, and asked them to indicate their

preferences for different artworks. Since higher stages of vision require more time

for processing to occur (Raftopoulos, 2011), having very short exposure times

would cause the subjects to perceive the paintings through earlier forms of vision. In

their study, subjects who were exposed to paintings for shorter amounts of time

preferred high-grain paintings that had more order and certainty. These subjects

were also shown paintings with different levels of arousal. High arousal paintings

contained conflicting principles of order that were associated with the form and the

content of the painting. The subjects in the short-exposure group preferred low-

arousal paintings compared to the high-arousal paintings (Cupchik & Berlyne,

1979). This is because they do not have the time to organize and comprehend these

different motifs in the high arousal paintings, and thus perceive them as less

pleasing than the artworks that can be easily understood. In contrast, those that
were able to see paintings for longer amounts of time tended to prefer paintings

with higher arousal, diversity, and complexity. Thus, these studies show that the

different levels of vision will result in different aesthetic preferences; earlier stages

of vision will result in preferences for order and simplicity, but later stages of vision,

which employ other elements of cognition, will cause preferences for complexity.

Not only is the perception of aesthetics affected by different stages of vision,

it is also impacted by top-down and bottom-up levels of information processing. The

biased competition theory of selective attention states that there are both top-down

and bottom-up mechanisms that impact perception. Top-down mechanisms cause

the brain to selectively direct its attention to particular visual stimuli, and can be

affected by cognitive biases such as memory and prior knowledge. Thus, these

biases tend to occur when objects that have more personal relevance or emotional

salience are perceived. In contrast, bottom-up biases are affected by the visual

stimulus itself, not by other cognitions (Beck & Kastner, 2009). Since aesthetic

perception results from the activation of both the anterior medical prefrontal cortex,

which has to do with higher cognitive functions, as well as the activation of

posterior cortical regions, Cupchik et al. (2009) argue that the aesthetic experience

results from the interaction of both of these top-down and bottom up mechanisms.

It is likely that aesthetic perception arises from the interaction of two different

processes, which is why there are both universal and subjective evaluations of

aesthetics; top-down processing would result in subjective judgements, whereas

bottom-up processing would results universal aspects, since it is only based upon

the stimuli that are perceived.

 Bottom-up biases occur when more salient elements are perceived, which

suggests that elements of aesthetics such as contrast or grouping are likely to be

universally appealing. A study by Reynolds and Desimone (2003) showed that in the

absence of top-down biases that affected attention, there was more firing in the V4

area of the brain when stimuli that had high amounts of contrast were observed.

This shows that bottom-up processing is more likely to occur when there are

visually salient features. In another study by Beck and Kastner (2005), pop-out

displays, which contained an item that differed from the others in both orientation

and colour, elicited more activity in visual processing areas V2 and V4 when they

were perceived, and reduced the competitive interactions caused by nearby stimuli.

In contrast, the more heterogeneous displays resulted in suppressive interactions of

these areas of the brain. After ensuring that these activations were specifically

caused by bottom-up mechanisms of information processing, they compared their

data to top-down effects that were found in previous studies. Top-down

mechanisms reduce the neural suppression caused by neural stimuli, whereas

bottom-up mechanisms completely eliminate this effect. The authors use these

findings to suggest that when viewing more salient objects, bottom-up biases are

more powerful than top-down mechanisms, and thus visually salient properties

such as colour or shape differences are processed in a pre-attentive, unconscious

state. In a study by McMains and Kastner (2010), stimuli that were clustered

together also displayed less neural suppression than stimuli that were not grouped,

an effect that was also caused by automatic bottom-up processing. Since there are

stimuli, such as contrast and grouping, that are more salient to these automatic
bottom-up biases, it is possible that these types of stimuli can result in more

universal aesthetic preferences because they would result in more bottom-up

processing.

These universal processes of perception can be reflected in humans

universal aesthetic preferences for aspects such as colour. A review by Palmer,

Schloss, and Sammartino (2013) states that Americans and British adults tend to

prefer cool colours to warm colours, light saturation over darker saturation, and

lighter colours over darker colours. In addition, more people liked bluish colours

compared to other colours. Furthermore, subjects in a study by Cupchik et al. (2009)

showed more preference for soft-edge paintings over hard edge paintings.

Additionally, contrast is an incredibly important aspect of aesthetic perception and

preference. Ramachandran and Hirstein (1999) argue that objects containing

elements of higher contrast are more aesthetically pleasing than objects with lower

amounts of contrast. In a study by Reber, Winkeilman, and Schwarz (1998), subjects

that were shown pictures of circles that had varying degrees of contrast with the

background believed that those with higher contrast were more aesthetically

pleasing. In addition, clearer images are preferred to more blurry versions (Leder,

Belke, Oeberst, & Augustin, 2004). Furthermore, pictures with colours or elements

that are grouped together are more aesthetically pleasing (Palmer, et al. 2013). All

of these studies show that there are seemingly universal aspects of aesthetic

perception, which can also be manifested in humans colour preference.

Humans also display aesthetic preference towards elements of the

composition of images. For example, humans tend to prefer symmetrical artworks

and shapes to those that are asymmetrical (Frith & Nias, 1974; Palmer et al., 2013).

In addition, humans tend to prefer horizontal and vertical lines instead of curved

ones; they also prefer smooth contours to sharp ones (Palmer et al., 2013). People

also tend to prefer images containing elements that are grouped together, instead of

scattered about (Ramachandran & Hirstein, 1999). Furthermore, when influenced

by the more universal aspects of early and intermediate vision, people tend to prefer

order to disorder, and low arousal to high arousal (Cupchik & Berlyne, 1979). In

addition, they tend to prefer medium levels of complexity (Leder et al., 2004) and

lower amounts of uncertainty (Palmer et al., 2013). They also prefer objects to be at

or near the centre of the image and to face inward. Moreover, humans tend to prefer

smaller objects to be smaller in an image, and larger objects to be depicted as larger

figures in the image, and also prefer objects that are related to be closer together,

and those that are related to be father apart (Palmer et al., 2013). These studies

show that aesthetic perception also results in similar preferences for aspects of

composition across populations.

These preferences for certain aspects of composition can also be reflected in

the visual rightness theory of picture perception. This theory states that images are

more aesthetically pleasing if its components are arranged in a certain organization

that is visually right. It also posits that skilled artists frequently employ this

organization of features, and thus many masterpieces will possess the correct

structural framework, which is salient to both art experts and laypeople. This

suggests that there are general aspects of aesthetic perception and preference that

can be discerned through the organization of an images components. (Locher,

2003). In order to test this theory, Locher (2003) showed subjects pictures of

original artwork as well as two different versions that altered the their balance and

composition, in order to see if they could correctly identify which one the

masterpiece was, based on structural composition alone. The subjects correctly

identified the originals at higher levels than chance, and only selected the most

perturbed version 18% of the time. When asked about the reason behind their

choices, many subjects spoke of the artworks content and stylistic properties. This

indicates that they were sensitive to the compositional balance of the work and had

a general consensus on the most aesthetically pleasing one based on these

compositional properties. Thus, universal aspects of aesthetic perception can also

be manifested in humans sensitivity for the compositional balance of artworks and

their ability to discern the correct and most aesthetically pleasing one when

shown several versions.

Humans have certain aesthetic preferences because of their limited

attentional resources. There are constraints on the amount of attention that can be

allocated to different visual modules (Ramachandran & Hirstein, 1999). Humans are

unable to process all of the visual stimuli that are presented to them, and thus

selectivity is an incredibly important aspect of perception. Selectivity allows

humans to only select the salient features of their environment, and discard the rest

of the distracting information that would otherwise leave their perceptual world in

disarray. By creating artworks, artists isolate specific stimuli and allow humans to

direct all of their attention to it (Huston, Nadal, Mora, Agnati, Cela Conde 2015).

Thus, aesthetic preference can be influenced by these limited capacities for

attention. One reason why contrast is so pleasing is because it eliminates redundant

stimuli, which allows humans to selectively direct their attention towards these

specific areas of high contrast (Ramachandran & Hirstein, 1999). Mamassian (2008)

argues that the composition of images plays an essential role in aesthetic

preference, as images with good composition will draw humans limited attention to

the more salient aspects, which are usually in the centre of the image.

Another explanation for humans aesthetic preferences can be derived from

fluency theory. Fluency theory posits that people prefer the images that are

processed more easily (Palmer et al., 2013). This fluency signal is hedonically

marked because provides information about the environment; high fluency

indicates that the environment contains positive states; low fluency signals typically

show that the environment contains negative states. One explanation for the

hedonic quality of fluency can be seen through familiarity, although it can be used to

explain many other aspects of processing. Familiar objects, which are more easily

processed, are indicators of safety; novel objects and creatures, which would take

longer to process, have the ability to be harmful (Winkielman, Schwarz, Reber, &

Fazendeiro, 2003). A study by Reber, Winkielman, and Schwartz (1998) provide

evidence for fluency theory. Subjects were presented with various images and asked

to rate their preference. However, before the images were presented, they were

shown another different image, for a very short amount of time, which was either

similar or different from the target image. Those that saw similar priming images,

which would allow the target images to be processed more easily, tended to rate the

target image as more pleasing. This preference for high fluency images can also be
seen in humans preference for certain aspects of art. For example, a study by

Palmer (1991) showed that subjects preferred dots containing vertical symmetry

instead of those containing horizontal or diagonal symmetry. Since vertical

symmetry is the easiest to detect (Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004), this study

shows that humans prefer stimuli that are more easily processed. Reber et al.

(2004) argue that fluency theory can also explain why humans prefer objects of

higher contrast, as objects with higher amounts of contrast are recognized faster,

which is a manifestation of high fluency.

There are many explanations for the aesthetic preferences of humans; the

last one that will be discussed in this essay comes from the field of evolutionary

psychology. Ramachandran (2011) argues that many aesthetic preferences come

from humans need to survive and reproduce. For example, humans needed to be

able to see fruit from long distances away in order to be able to obtain adequate

amounts of nourishment. Since the colour of fruit usually contrasted with the

background of the vegetation, having a preference for contrast would be reinforcing,

as it would allow humans to better obtain fruit. In addition, humans prefer images

with elements that are grouped together, because the ability to draw correlations

and inferences from perceptual stimuli is incredibly useful for survival

(Ramachandran & Hirstein, 1999). Humans preference for symmetry can also be

explained by evolution. Since humans are flooded with so many perceptual stimuli,

the presence of symmetrical objects would draw humans attention to biologically

important objects, such as animals, plants, or other humans, which generally tend to

be symmetrical. This would facilitate further processing of these entities until they
can be recognized and managed (Ramachandran & Hirstein, 1999). Humans

preference for symmetry can also be explained through the process of mate

selection. Ramachandran (2011) argues that one manifestation of parasitic

infections, which reduces the fertility of a mate, is through the loss of facial

symmetry. Thus, the presence of symmetry is one indicator of the health and

fertility of a potential mate. This biological desire for symmetry is also

unconsciously applied to humans aesthetic preferences, which is why they tend to

prefer images that are more symmetrical (Frith & Nias, 1974). Therefore, these

universal aesthetic preferences are also somewhat influenced by humans need for

survival and reproduction.

The appreciation of art seems to be both universal and subjective. While

there is a wide range of appreciated artworks and styles, there still seem to be

certain masters and works that have been more universally appreciated, across both

culture and time. This essay shows that while aesthetic preference is influenced by

cognitions such as emotion, memory, and knowledge, which are subject to

individual differences, there are aspects of aesthetic preference that are more

automatic and are based on the sensory stimuli alone. These include early and

intermediate vision, as well as bottom-up processing. Since these types of vision are

relatively automatic and do not take into account the individuals experiences or

thoughts, universal aspects of aesthetic preference can be discerned by studying

these mechanisms. These types of vision result in aesthetic preferences for

components such as order, unity, contrast, and other perceptually salient stimuli.

These neurological mechanisms can also be manifested in humans behaviour. In the

studies above, humans generally had preferences for certain types of colour,

contrast, and symmetry. They were also sensitive to the compositional elements of

the images, and were often aware of visually right organizations. These aesthetic

preferences can be explained by humans limited attentional resources, their ease of

processing, as well as their need for survival and reproduction thousands of years

ago. This essay shows that although aesthetic preferences can wary widely, there

are still aspects of aesthetics that are universally favoured due to perceptual

processes.
 Works cited

Beck, D., & Kastner, S. (2009). Top-down and bottom-up mechanisms in biasing
competition in the human brain. Vision Research, 49(10), 11541165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2008.07.012
Cattaneo, Z., Lega, C., Gardelli, C., Merabet, L. B., Cela-Conde, C. J., & Nadal, M. (2014).
The role of prefrontal and parietal cortices in esthetic appreciation of
representational and abstract art: A TMS study. NeuroImage, 99(Supplement
C), 443450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.05.037
Cela-Conde, C. J., Agnati, L., Huston, J. P., Mora, F., & Nadal, M. (2011). The neural
foundations of aesthetic appreciation. Progress in Neurobiology, 94(1), 3948.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2011.03.003
Cela-Conde, C. J., Marty, G., Maest, F., Ortiz, T., Munar, E., Fernndez, A., Quesney,
F. (2004). Activation of the prefrontal cortex in the human visual aesthetic
perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America, 101(16), 63216325.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0401427101
Chatterjee, A. (2003). Prospects for a cognitive neuroscience of visual aesthetics.
Bulletin of Psychology and the Arts, 4, 5560.
https://doi.org/10.1037/e514602010-003
Chatterjee, A. (2011). Visual Art. In J. A. Gottfried (Ed.), Neurobiology of Sensation
and Reward. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92788/
Cupchik, G. C., & Berlyne, D. E. (1979). The perception of collative properties in
visual stimuli. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 20(1), 93104.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.1979.tb00688.x
Cupchik, G. C., Vartanian, O., Crawley, A., & Mikulis, D. J. (2009). Viewing artworks:
Contributions of cognitive control and perceptual facilitation to aesthetic
experience. Brain and Cognition, 70(1), 8491.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.01.003
Frith, C. D., & Nias, D. K. B. (1974). What determines aesthetic preferences. Journal of
General Psychology; Provincetown, Mass., Etc., 91, 163173.
Hume, D. (1757). On the standard of taste. In Four dissertations. London: A. Millar in
the Strand
Krawczyk, D. C. (2002). Contributions of the prefrontal cortex to the neural basis of
human decision making. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 26(6), 631
664.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic
appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology (London,
England: 1953), 95(Pt 4), 489508.
https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811
Livingstone, M. S., & Hubel, D. H. (1987). Psychophysical evidence for separate
channels for the perception of form, color, movement, and depth. Journal of
Neuroscience, 7(11), 34163468.
Locher, P. J. (2003). An empirical investigation of the visual rightness theory of
picture perception. Acta Psychologica, 114(2), 147164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.07.001
Mamassian, P. (2008). Ambiguities and conventions in the perception of visual art.
Vision Research, 48(20), 21432153.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2008.06.010
McMains, S. A., & Kastner, S. (2010). Defining the units of competition: Influences of
perceptual organization on competitive interactions in human visual cortex.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(11), 24172426.
https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21391
Nadal, M., Munar, E., Cap, M. A., Rossell, J., & Cela-Conde, C. J. (2008). Towards a
framework for the study of the neural correlates of aesthetic preference.
Spatial Vision, 21(35), 379396.
https://doi.org/10.1163/156856808784532653
Palmer, S. E., Schloss, K. B., & Sammartino, J. (2013). Visual Aesthetics and Human
Preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 77107.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100504
Petrides, M. (2000). The role of the mid-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in working
memory. Experimental Brain Research, 133(1), 4454.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210000399
Raftopoulos, A. (2011). Late vision: processes and epistemic status. Frontiers in
Psychology, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00382
Ramachandran, V. (2011). The tell-tale brain: a neuroscientist's quest for what makes
us human. London: W.W. Norton and Company
Ramachandran, V., & Hirstein, W. (1999). The Science of Art: A Neurological Theory of
Aesthetic Experience (Vol. 6).
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic
pleasure: is beauty in the perceivers processing experience? Personality and
Social Psychology Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and
Social Psychology, Inc, 8(4), 364382.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on
affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 4548.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00008
Reynolds, J. H., & Desimone, R. (2003). Interacting Roles of Attention and Visual
Salience in V4. Neuron, 37(5), 853863. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-
6273(03)00097-7
Vessel, E. A., Starr, G. G., & Rubin, N. (2012). The brain on art: intense aesthetic
experience activates the default mode network. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00066
Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Reber, R., & Fazendeiro, T. A. (2003). The hedonic
marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In
Persuasive Imagery: A Consumer Response Perspective (pp. 7589).