1 School of Psychology, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116029, China 2 Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China 3 State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China 4 Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
People prefer beautiful visual artworks. Aesthetic experiences to beautiful and ugly images are different. Studies on neuroaesthetics showed different neural responses to beautiful stimuli compared to ugly stimuli. The first stage of aesthetic experience of a visual artwork is visual perception of the stimulus. Most research about aesthetic processing focused on stimuli presented consciously. Little is known about whether aesthetic processing can occur unconsciously. Previous research suggested that both beautiful paintings and attractive faces can elicit activation of the reward circuitry in our brain. Attractive faces break through continuous flash suppression more quickly than unattractive faces. Thus, it is possible that unconscious processing of beautiful paintings is different from that of less beautiful paintings. In two experiments, the present study adopted continuous flash suppression paradigm to investigate whether aesthetic ratings of western paintings influenced the time for stimuli to break suppression. We also compared the suppression effect of achromatic (Experiment 1) and chromatic (Experiment 2) noise pictures.
In Experiment 1, 20 participants (8 females, 12 males) took part in the experiment. The independent variable was aesthetic rating of western paintings (high, average, and low). The achromatic suppression noises were presented to the participants’ dominant eye and continued to flash at 10 Hz. A western painting was presented to the nondominant eye, at either above or below the central cross, with contrast increasing from 0 to 100% within 1s and remaining constant until response. Participants were instructed to respond as accurately and quickly as possible when any part of the painting was detected, and report whether the target was presented above or below the cross. 18 participants (9 females, 9 males) took part in Experiment 2. Experiment 2 was identical with Experiment 1 except that chromatic suppression noises were presented to the dominant eye.
The results of Experiment 1 showed that paintings with low aesthetic ratings took significantly longer time to break into awareness, comparing to paintings with average and high aesthetic ratings. The reaction times were not significantly different between paintings with average and high aesthetic ratings. In Experiment 2, however, the times for breaking suppression were not significantly different among the three categories of paintings. Moreover, the effect of suppression was different between different noises, such that reaction times were longer under suppression by chromatic noises (Experiment 2) than achromatic noises (Experiment 1).
These results suggested different unconscious processing of western paintings with different aesthetic ratings. Similar to attractive faces, paintings with high and average aesthetic ratings were easier to be detected under suppression. Our findings provided evidence that aesthetic processing can occur unconsciously under suppression by achromatic noises. The present study also suggested that the suppression effect of achromatic noises is different from that of chromatic noises. Chromatic noises may interfere with the color information of paintings and disrupt the aesthetic perception of paintings.
实验1：使用黑白噪音图片, 每名被试对低、中等、高三组美感图片的突破抑制时间. * p < 0.05
Aharon I., Etcoff N., Ariely D., Chabris C. F., O'Connor E., & Breiter H. C . ( 2001). Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral evidence. Neuron, 32( 3), 537-551.
Anderson E., Siegel E. H., Bliss-Moreau E., & Barrett L. F . ( 2011). The visual impact of gossip. Science, 332, 1446-1448.
Anderson E., Siegel E., White D., & Barrett L. F . ( 2012). Out of sight but not out of mind: Unseen affective faces influence evaluations and social impressions. Emotion, 12( 6), 1210-1221.
Bradley , M.M., & Lang, P. J . ( 1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 25( 1), 49-59.
Bray , S., &O'Doherty J. , ( 2007). Neural coding of reward- prediction error signals during classical conditioning with attractive faces. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97( 4), 3036-3045.
Chai F. Y., Yu F., & Peng K. P . ( 2016). Insights into aesthetic pleasure and processing fluency. Psychological Exploration, 36( 2), 101-106.
Chatterjee, A., &Vartanian O. , ( 2016). Neuroscience of aesthetics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369, 172-194.
Cela-Conde C. J., Marty G., Maestú F., Ortiz T., Munar E., Fernández 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), 6321-6325.
Costello P., Jiang Y., Baartman B., McGlennen K., & He S . ( 2009). Semantic and subword priming during binocular suppression. Consciousness and Cognition, 18( 2), 375-382.
Cupchik G. C., Vartanian O., Crawley A., & Mikulis D. J . ( 2009). Viewing artworks: Contributions of cognitive control and perceptual facilitation to aesthetic experience. Brain & Cognition, 70( 1), 84-91.
Ding, X.J., & Zhou, C. L . ( 2006). A neurological study on aesthetic process and its significance to aesthetics. Psychological Science, 29( 5), 1247-1249.
Hahn, A. C., &Perrett D.I, . ( 2014). Neural and behavioral responses to attractiveness in adult and infant faces. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 46, 591-603.
Hung S. M., Nieh C. H., & Hsieh P. J . ( 2016). Unconscious processing of facial attractiveness: Invisible attractive faces orient visual attention. Scientific Reports, 6, 37117.
Jiang Y., Costello P., & He S . ( 2007). Processing of invisible stimuli: Advantage of upright faces and recognizable words in overcoming interocular suppression. Psychological Science, 18( 4), 349-355.
Jiang,Y., &He S. , ( 2006). Cortical responses to invisible faces: Dissociating subsystems for facial-information processing. Current Biology, 16( 20), 2023-2029.
Kawabata, H., &Zeki S. , ( 2004). Neural correlates of beauty. Journal of Neurophysiology, 91( 4), 1699-1705.
Kovács I., Papathomas T. V., Yang M., & Fehér A . ( 1996). When the brain changes its mind: Interocular grouping during binocular rivalry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 93( 26), 15508-15511.
Li M. L., Chen J., & Wu Y . ( 2015). The research of aesthetic cognitive difference in Chinese and Western paintings between art and ordinary undergraduates. Journal of Psychological Science, 38( 2), 366-372.
Morris,J. D . ( 1995). Observations: SAM: The self-assessment manikin. An efficient cross-cultural measurement of emotional response. Journal of Advertising Research, 35, 63-68.
Massar , K., &Buunk, A.P . ( 2010). Judging a book by its cover: Jealousy after subliminal priming with attractive and unattractive faces. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 634-638.
O'Doherty J., Winston J., Critchley H., Perrett D., Burt D. M., & Dolan R. J . ( 2003). Beauty in a smile: The role of medial orbitofrontal cortex in facial attractiveness. Neuropsychologia, 41( 2), 147-155.
Olson, I. R., &Marshuetz C. , ( 2005). Facial attractiveness is appraised in a glance. Emotion, 5( 4), 498-502.
Pearce M. T., Zaidel D. W., Vartanian O., Skov M., Leder H., Chatterjee A., & Nadal M . ( 2016). Neuroaesthetics: The cognitive neuroscience of aesthetic experience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11( 2), 265-279.
Somoon, K., & Moorapun, C. , ( 2016). The roles of aesthetic and cultural perception affected by window display of Thai crafts products to increase purchasing intention. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 234, 55-63.
Stein T., Hebart M. N., & Sterzer P . ( 2011). Breaking continuous flash suppression: A new measure of unconscious processing during interocular suppression? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5, 167.
Tan, J.S ., &Yeh S.L, . ( 2015). Audiovisual integration facilitates unconscious visual scene processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41( 5), 1325-1335.
Yang, E., & BlakeR ., ( 2012). Deconstructing continuous flash suppression . Journal of Vision, 12( 3), 8.
Yang E., Brascamp J., Kang M. S., & Blake R . ( 2014). On the use of continuous flash suppression for the study of visual processing outside of awareness. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 724.
Yang ,Y.H., &Yeh S.L, . ( 2011). Accessing the meaning of invisible words. Consciousness and Cognition, 20, 223-233.
Yang E., Zald D. H., & Blake R . ( 2007). Fearful expressions gain preferential access to awareness during continuous flash suppression. Emotion, 7( 4), 882-886.
Yue X., Vessel E. A., & Biederman I . ( 2007). The neural basis of scene preferences. NeuroReport, 18 6), 525-529.
Zhang X. J., Liu Y. J., & Liu C . ( 2015). The neural substrate underlying the aesthetic processing of facial beauty and individual differences. Journal of Psychological Science, 38( 3), 574-579.