MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311734802 · doi:10.1167/jov.22.14.3605

Categorization links Perceptual Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure

2022· article· en· W4311734802 on OpenAlexaff
Dirk B. Walther, Delaram Farzanfar, Gaeun Son

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAesthetic Perception and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationPleasureFluencyPsychologyCognitive psychologyPerceptionFeelingStimulus (psychology)Processing fluencySocial psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perceptual fluency is the ease with which incoming stimuli are processed. Fluency facilitates categorization decisions (Miles et al, 2012; Torralbo et al, 2013) and increases subjective feelings of aesthetic pleasure (Reber et al 2004). Prototypical members of a semantic category are also processed with higher fluency and aesthetic pleasure. We here examine the relationship of categorization behavior with perceptual fluency and aesthetic pleasure. Participants were asked to categorize briefly presented scene images into one of six categories. Images were immediately followed by a perceptual mask. Images were presented at five different durations by setting the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) to five different values, ranging from 13.3 to 106.6 milliseconds. Reaction time and categorization accuracy were recorded at each SOA for each image. In a separate online experiment, participants on Prolific were presented with these images and asked to rate them based on two questions: “How easy is this image to perceive?” and “How much do you enjoy viewing this image?”. Responses were collected on a 5-point Likert scale. We found that a change in reaction time as a function of stimulus presentation during categorization tasks provided an objective index for feelings of fluency, whereas categorization accuracy predicted aesthetic pleasure responses. We also found a significant correlation between fluency and aesthetic pleasure and no association between categorization accuracy and fluency. Our results indicate a dissociation between fluency and aesthetic pleasure. For fluently experienced stimuli, categorization speed increases more quickly with longer SOAs, whereas categorization accuracy is higher for more enjoyable stimuli. Different aspects of categorization behavior can be used to understand the relationships between prototypicality, fluent processing and aesthetic pleasure. Reward processing mechanisms may underlie the neural basis of this triad.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicAesthetic Perception and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207