Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study - ScienceDirect

Fig. 1. Displays experimental paradigm where a fixation cross was shown for 1 s followed by a block of 5 presentations of ‘gallery’ labelled conditions (A) or ‘computer’ labelled conditions (B), which was presented for 5 s in which the subjects were instructed to indicate the level of aesthetic appeal by means of button-press on a scale from 5 (highest appeal) to 1 (lowest appeal). The inter-trial interval was 1 s (fixation cross) between the presented images. (C) The experimental protocol consisted of a block-design with 5 presentations in each block. The 5 trials within every block had duration of 6 s (fixation + stimulus). The TR was 2400 ms. Labels were counterbalanced across subjects. The stimuli were all non-canonical chromatic abstract artworks. Fig. 2. Subjects' aesthetic ratings grouped according to the labelled conditions. (A) Mean aesthetic ratings across subjects for the two conditions. The SEM across subjects is shown. (B) Distribution of the frequencies of aesthetic respo

Fig. 1. Displays experimental paradigm where a fixation cross was shown for 1 s followed by a block of 5 presentations of ‘gallery’ labelled conditions (A) or ‘computer’ labelled conditions (B), which was presented for 5 s in which the subjects were instructed to indicate the level of aesthetic appeal by means of button-press on a scale from 5 (highest appeal) to 1 (lowest appeal). The inter-trial interval was 1 s (fixation cross) between the presented images. (C) The experimental protocol consisted of a block-design with 5 presentations in each block. The 5 trials within every block had durat