动态性对简笔画动物审美的影响及其神经机制

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00575

心理学报 ›› 2021, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (6): 575-586.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00575

动态性对简笔画动物审美的影响及其神经机制

赵雪汝²(), 李婷³, 李金惠¹, 何先友¹(), 张维¹, 陈广耀⁴

¹华南师范大学心理学院/脑认知与教育科学教育部重点实验室(华南师范大学)/心理应用研究中心/广东省心理健康知科学重点实验室, 广州 510631
²北京教育学院学生发展中心, 北京 100120
³松山湖实验中学, 广东东莞 523000
⁴暨南大学新闻与传播学院/媒体国家级实验教学示范中心(暨南大学), 广州 510632

收稿日期:2020-06-23 发布日期:2021-04-25 出版日期:2021-06-25
通讯作者: 赵雪汝,何先友 E-mail:xianyouhe@163.com;871656880@qq.com
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金(31970984);国家自然科学基金(31671132);北京教育学院重点关注课题(ZDGZ2019-01);中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助(19JNQM04)

The neural mechanism of the aesthetics of dynamic animal-stick figures

ZHAO Xueru²(), LI Ting³, LI Jinhui¹, HE Xianyou¹(), ZHANG Wei¹, CHEN Guangyao⁴

¹School of Psychology, South China Normal University/Key Laboratory of Brain, Cognition and Education Sciences (South China Normal University), Ministry of Education/Center for Studies of Psychological Application/Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China
²Academy of Basic Education Professionals, Beijing Institute of Education, Beijing, 100120, China
³SSL Experimental Middle School, Dongguan 523000, China
⁴School of Journalism & Communication/National Media & Experimental Teaching Center, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China

Received:2020-06-23 Online:2021-04-25 Published:2021-06-25
Contact: ZHAO Xueru,HE Xianyou E-mail:xianyouhe@163.com;871656880@qq.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

运用行为和fMRI技术, 通过比较动态刺激与静态刺激审美判断的行为和脑机制的异同探讨动态性对简笔画动物审美的影响, 包括两个实验。结果发现, 动态简笔画动物的美观程度评分和喜欢程度评分都显著高于静态简笔画动物。同时, 动态简笔画动物审美判断激活的区域基本涵盖了静态简笔画动物审美所激活的区域, 二者都激活了枕叶区等视觉加工区域、额叶区等认知加工区域、眶额叶皮层等奖赏区域以及海马、脑岛、扣带回、杏仁核等情绪加工区域。与静态简笔画动物的审美相比, 动态简笔画动物的审美显著激活了双侧舌回、双侧MT。本研究结果表明, 动态性影响了对简笔画动物的审美, 动态简笔画动物比静态简笔画动物被判断为更加美观。

关键词: 动态性, 动态简笔画动物, 静态简笔画动物, 审美

Abstract:

“The love of beauty is an essential part of all healthy human nature.” Aesthetic need is a high-level spiritual pursuit of human beings. In recent years, researchers have gradually paid more and more attention to the importance of beauty. Although researchers have carried out many aesthetic studies, most have focused on the study of static stimuli and not dynamic stimuli such as flying birds or fast trotting horses. Thus, research in cognitive experimental aesthetics and cognitive neuroaesthetics has not addressed the following questions: Which areas of the brain are activated when we appreciate dynamic animals? What are the differences between the brain regions activated by dynamic animals versus static animals? Does dynamic property of the animal affect aesthetic judgment?

In summary, the present study indicated that the dynamic property of animal-stick figures affected aesthetic judgment and dynamic animal-stick figures were more beautiful than static ones.

We used behavioral research approaches and neurocognitive techniques (functional magnetic resonance image, fMRI) to gather converging evidence that addressed the above questions. In order to avoid the influence of irrelevant factors, we used stick figures as the experimental material. In Experiment 1 we explored if the dynamic property animal-stick figures affects aesthetic judgment. 20 college students participated in the formal experiment and 20 additional college students rated experimental materials. Participants were asked to evaluate the beauty and liking of dynamic animal-stick figures and static animal-stick figures. E-prime 2.0 was used to present stimuli and to collect the behavioral data. Results showed that dynamic animal-stick figures had higher aesthetic scores and liking scores than static animal-stick figures. Animal-stick figures were rated as more beautiful.

In Experiment 2 we explored neural mechanisms that underlie aesthetic judgment of dynamic animal-stick figures and compared the neural mechanisms between the aesthetic judgments of dynamic animal-stick figures and static ones. 20 participants who did not participate in Experiment 1 were scanned while they performed aesthetic judgments on dynamic animal-stick figures and matched static animal-stick figures.

Results revealed that regions of occipital lobe, frontal lobe, hippocampus, cingulate cortex, insula, orbital frontal cortex (OFC) and amygdala were commonly activated in the aesthetic judgments of both dynamic and static animal-stick figures. The neural networks involved in aesthetic judgments of dynamic animal-stick figures overlapped with those involved in aesthetic judgments of static animal-stick figures. Furthermore, compared to static animal-stick figures, stronger activations of lingual gyrus and middle temporal gyrus (MT/V5) were found in the aesthetic judgments of dynamic animal-stick figures. However, compared to dynamic animal-stick figures, no significant activations were found in beautiful judgments of static animal-stick figures.

Key words: dynamics, dynamic animal-stick figure, static animal-stick figure, aesthetic

中图分类号:

B842

赵雪汝, 李婷, 李金惠, 何先友, 张维, 陈广耀. (2021). 动态性对简笔画动物审美的影响及其神经机制. 心理学报, 53(6), 575-586.

ZHAO Xueru, LI Ting, LI Jinhui, HE Xianyou, ZHANG Wei, CHEN Guangyao. (2021). The neural mechanism of the aesthetics of dynamic animal-stick figures. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(6), 575-586.

图/表 10

参考文献 45

[1]	Baudouin, J.-Y., & Tiberghien, G. (2004). Symmetry, averageness, and feature size in the facial attractiveness of women. Acta Psychologica, 117(3),313-332. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2004.07.002 URL
[2]	Berlyne, D.E. (1971). Aesthetics and psychobiology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
[3]	Biaggio, M.K., & Supplee, K.A. (1983). Dimensions of aesthetic perception. Journal of Psychology, 114(1),29-35.
[4]	Blood, A.J., & Zatorre, R.J. (2001). Intensely pleasurable responses to music correlate with activity in brain regions implicated in reward and emotion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(20),11818-11823. doi: 10.1073/pnas.191355898 URL
[5]	Bohrn, I.C., Altmann, U., Lubrich, O., Menninghaus, W., & Jacobs, A.M. (2013). When we like what we know - A parametric fMRI analysis of beauty and familiarity. Brain & Language, 124(1),1-8.
[6]	Bray, S., & O'Doherty, J. (2007). Neural coding of reward- prediction error signals during classical conditioning with attractive faces. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97,3036-3045. doi: 10.1152/jn.01211.2006 URL
[7]	Brown, S., Martinez, M.J., & Parsons, L.M. (2004). Passive music listening spontaneously engages limbic and paralimbic systems. Neuroreport, 15(13),2033-2037. doi: 10.1097/00001756-200409150-00008 URL
[8]	Cattaneo, Z., Schiavi, S., Silvanto, J., & Nadal, M. (2015). A TMS study on the contribution of visual area V5 to the perception of implied motion in art and its appreciation. Cognitive Neuroscience. doi: 10.1080/17588928.2015.1083968.
[9]	Cazzato, V., Siega, S., & Urgesi, C. (2012). “What women like”: Influence of motion and form on esthetic body perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(3),235.
[10]	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 National Academy of Science, 101,6321-6325. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0401427101 URL
[11]	Chakravarty, A. (2010). Mona Lisa's smile: A hypothesis based on a new principle of art neuroscience. Medical Hypotheses, 75(1),69-72. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2010.01.032 pmid: 20171787
[12]	Chatterjee, A., Thomas, A., Smith, S.E., & Aguirre, G.K. (2009). The neural response to facial attractiveness. Neuropsychology, 23(2),135-143. doi: 10.1037/a0014430 pmid: 19254086
[13]	Cupchik, G.C. (2002). The evolution of psychical distance as an aesthetic concept. Culture and Psychology, 8(2),155-187. doi: 10.1177/1354067X02008002437 URL
[14]	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),84-91. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.01.003 pmid: 19223099
[15]	Di Dio, C., Macaluso, E., & Rizzolatti, G. (2007). The golden beauty: Brain response to classical and renaissance sculpture. PLoS ONE, 2(11), e1201. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0001201.
[16]	Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41(2),301-307. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00838-9 URL
[17]	Hekkert, P., Snelders, D. & van Wieringen, P.C.W. (2003). 'Most advanced, yet acceptable': Typicality and novelty as joint predictors of aesthetic preference in industrial design. British Journal of Psychology, 94(1),111-124. doi: 10.1348/000712603762842147 URL
[18]	Huang, Z.L., & Zhang, W.D. (2012). Neuroaesthetics: Exploring aesthetics and the brain. Advances in Psychological Science, 20(5),672-681. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2012.00672 URL
	[ 黄子岚, 张卫东. (2012). 神经美学: 探索审美与大脑的关系. 心理科学进展>, 20(5),672-681.]
[19]	Jacobsen, T., Schubotz, R.I., Höfel, L.,& von Cramon, D.Y. (2006). Brain correlates of aesthetic judgment of beauty. NeuroImage, 29(1),276-285. pmid: 16087351
[20]	Kawabata, H., & Zeki, S. (2004). Neural correlates of beauty. Journal of Neurophysiology, 91(4),1699-1705. doi: 10.1152/jn.00696.2003 URL
[21]	Kim, H., Adolphs, R., O'Doherty, J.P., & Shimojo, S. (2007). Temporal isolation of neural processes underlying face preference decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(46),18253-18258. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0703101104 URL
[22]	Kirk, U., Skov, M., Christensen, M.S., & Nygaard, N. (2009). Brain correlates of aesthetic expertise: A parametric fMRI study. Brain and Cognition, 69(2),306-315. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2008.08.004 URL
[23]	Kirk, U., Skov, M., Hulme, O., Christensen, M.S., & Zeki, S. (2009). Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44(3),1125-1132. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.009 URL
[24]	Kourtzi, Z., & Kanwisher, N. (2000). Activation in human MT/MST by static images with implied motion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(1),48. doi: 10.1162/08989290051137594 URL
[25]	Kranz, F., & Ishai, A. (2006). Face perception is modulated by sexual preference. Current Biology, 16(1),63-68. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2005.10.070 URL
[26]	Mastandrea, S., & Umiltà, M. (2016). Futurist art: Motion and aesthetics as a function of title. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10,311. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00201.
[27]	Mende-Siedlecki, P., Said, C.P., & Todorov, A. (2013). The social evaluation of faces: A meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(3),285-299. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsr090 pmid: 22287188
[28]	Mizokami, Y., Terao, T., Hatano, K., Hoaki, N., Kohno, K., Araki, Y.… Kochiyama, T. (2014). Difference in brain activations during appreciating paintings and photographic analogs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 478. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00478.
[29]	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. pmid: 12459213
[30]	Phillips, J.A., Noppeney, U., Humphreys, G.W., & Price, C.J. (2002). Can segregation within the semantic system account for category-specific deficits? Brain, 125,2067-2080. doi: 10.1093/brain/awf215 URL
[31]	Rhodes, G., Proffitt, F., Grady, J.M., & Sumich, A. (1998). Facial symmetry and the perception of beauty. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 5,659-669. doi: 10.3758/BF03208842 URL
[32]	Ruby, P., & Decety, J. (2001). Effect of subjective perspective taking during simulation of action: A PET investigation of agency. Nature Neuroscience, 4(5),546-550. doi: 10.1038/87510 URL
[33]	Rymarczyk, K., Żurawski, L., Jankowiak-Siuda, K., & Szatkowska, I. (2019). Empathy in facial mimicry of fear and disgust: Simultaneous EMG-fMRI recordings during observation of static and dynamic facial expressions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10,701. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00701 pmid: 30971997
[34]	Tsukiura, T., & Cabeza, R. (2011a). Shared brain activity for aesthetic and moral judgments: Implications for the beauty- is-good stereotype. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(1),138-148. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsq025. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsq025 URL
[35]	Tsukiura, T., & Cabeza, R. (2011b). Remembering beauty: Roles of orbitofrontal and hippocampal regions in successful memory encoding of attractive faces. Neuroimage. 54(1),653-660. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.07.046 URL
[36]	Urgesi, C., Mele, S., & Cazzato, V. (2012). TMS investigations of the influence of body form and body action representations on body aesthetic perception. Cognitive Processing, 13(13),29.
[37]	Vartanian, O., & Goel, V. (2004). Neuroanatomical correlates of aesthetic preference for paintings. NeuroReport, 15(5),893-897. pmid: 15073538
[38]	Wallentin, M., Nielsen, A.H., Vuust, P., Dohn, A., Roepstorff, A., & Lund, T.E. (2011). BOLD response to motion verbs in left posterior middle temporal gyrus during story comprehension. Brain & Language, 119(3),221.
[39]	Winston, J.S., O'Doherty, J., Kilner, J.M., Perrett, D.I., & Dolan, R.J. (2007). Brain systems for assessing facial attractiveness. Neuropsychologia, 45(1),195-206. pmid: 16828125
[40]	Yan, C.G., Wang, X.D., Zuo, X.N., & Zang, Y.F. (2016). DPABI: Data processing & analysis for (resting-state) brain imaging. Neuroinformatics, 14,339-351. doi: 10.1007/s12021-016-9299-4. doi: 10.1007/s12021-016-9299-4 URL
[41]	Zeki, S. (1999). Art and the brain. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(6-7),76-96.
[42]	Zeki, S., & Lamb, M. (1994). The neurology of kinetic art. Brain, 117(3),607-636. doi: 10.1093/brain/117.3.607 URL
[43]	Zeki, S., & Stutters, J. (2012). A brain-derived metric for preferred kinetic stimuli. Open Biology, 2(2), 120001 doi: 10.1098/rsob.120001..
[44]	Zhang, W., He, X., Lai, S., Wan, J., Lai, S., Zhao, X., & Li, D. (2017). Neural substrates of embodied natural beauty and social endowed beauty: An fMRI study. Scientific Reports, 7(1),7125. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-07608-8 pmid: 28769082
[45]	Zhang, W., Lai, S., He, X., Zhao, X., & Lai, S. (2016). Neural correlates for aesthetic appraisal of pictograph and its referent: An fMRI study. Behavioral Brain Research, 305,229-238. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2016.02.029 URL

大脑区域	大脑半球	峰值坐标			t值	团簇大小
大脑区域	大脑半球	x	y	z	t值	团簇大小
动态动物 > 静态动物
舌回	L	-24	-84	-15	7.36	3071
	R	21	-84	-12	7.16
静态动物 > 动态动物
没有显著激活区域

大脑区域	大脑半球	峰值坐标			t值	团簇大小
大脑区域	大脑半球	x	y	z	t值	团簇大小
动态动物 > 静态动物
舌回	L	-24	-84	-15	7.36	3071
	R	21	-84	-12	7.16
静态动物 > 动态动物
没有显著激活区域

大脑区域	大脑半球	峰值坐标			t值	团簇大小
大脑区域	大脑半球	x	y	z	t值	团簇大小
美观动态动物 > 美观静态动物
舌回	R	9	-90	-9	7.30	1603
MT	R	51	-66	3	5.24	152
枕中回	R	33	-78	15	4.66	74
美观静态动物 > 美观动态动物
没有显著激活区域

大脑区域	大脑半球	峰值坐标			t值	团簇大小
大脑区域	大脑半球	x	y	z	t值	团簇大小
美观动态动物 > 美观静态动物
舌回	R	9	-90	-9	7.30	1603
MT	R	51	-66	3	5.24	152
枕中回	R	33	-78	15	4.66	74
美观静态动物 > 美观动态动物
没有显著激活区域

大脑区域	大脑半球	峰值坐标			t值	团簇大小
大脑区域	大脑半球	x	y	z	t值	团簇大小
不美观动态动物 > 不美观静态动物
舌回	L	-15	-90	-12	5.62	585
枕中回	R	33	-84	9	4.88	164
不美观静态动物 > 不美观动态动物
没有显著激活区域

动态性对简笔画动物审美的影响及其神经机制

The neural mechanism of the aesthetics of dynamic animal-stick figures

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

评审附件

可视化

English Version

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 10

参考文献 45

相关文章 3

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

大脑区域	半球	峰值坐标			t值	团簇大小
大脑区域	半球	x	y	z	t值	团簇大小
动态动物 > 亮度色块
枕下回	R	36	-87	-12	29.97	5951
枕中回	L	-33	-90	-3	28.69
海马	L	-21	-30	-6	14.87	94
	R	21	-30	-3	13.73	321
岛盖部额下回	R	48	9	27	12.86	1110
三角部额下回	L	-57	18	30	10.08	591
扣带回	R	6	27	36	9.75	635
	L	-6	24	39	9.50
梭状回	L	-33	-6	-36	9.51	47
脑岛	L	-33	21	-6	9.13	184
杏仁核	L	-30	0	-24	7.49	72
美观动态动物 > 高亮度色块
枕下回	R	36	-87	-12	19.82	1975
枕中回	L	-33	-90	-3	19.60	1633
海马	L	-21	-30	-6	10.09	38
	R	21	-30	-3	8.80	44
岛盖部额下回	R	48	9	27	9.54	307
	L	-39	3	27	6.04	35
梭状回	R	30	-3	-39	8.47	29
	L	-33	-6	-36	7.08	21
扣带回	L	-6	24	39	6.32	83
不美观动态动物 > 低亮度色块
枕下回	R	36	-87	-12	22.51	4619
枕中回	L	-33	-90	-3	20.96
海马	L	-21	-30	-6	11.21	65
	R	21	-30	-3	10.58	104
梭状回	R	30	-3	-39	9.61	40
岛盖部额下回	R	45	6	24	8.87	624
三角部额下回	L	-57	18	30	7.96	315
扣带回	R	6	27	36	7.61	323
脑岛	L	-33	21	-6	7.21	118
眶额叶皮层下部	R	48	51	-3	6.33	62
杏仁核	L	-27	0	-24	6.29	29

大脑区域	大脑半球	峰值坐标			t值	团簇大小
大脑区域	大脑半球	x	y	z	t值	团簇大小
静态动物 > 亮度色块
枕下回	R	36	-87	-12	27.90	4296
枕中回	L	-33	-90	-3	25.82
梭状回	R	30	-3	-39	12.51	130
	L	-33	-6	-36	9.24	72
岛盖部额下回	R	48	9	27	12.30	760
海马	L	-21	-30	-6	11.91	56
	R	21	-30	-3	11.17	104
扣带回	R	6	27	36	9.71	348
三角部额下回	L	-57	18	30	8.91	277
脑岛	L	-33	21	-6	7.97	68
眶额叶皮层下部	R	24	24	-18	6.87	53
美观静态动物 > 高亮度色块
枕下回	R	36	-87	-12	19.07	1308
枕中回	L	-33	-90	-3	18.01	1169
梭状回	R	30	-3	-39	8.07	21
岛盖部额下回	R	48	9	27	7.78	100
海马	R	21	-30	-3	7.22	21
三角部额下回	R	48	30	18	6.75	56
扣带回	R	6	27	36	5.97	39
	L	-9	30	33	5.41
不美观静态动物 > 低亮度色块
枕下回	R	36	-87	-12	20.37	3703
枕中回	L	-33	-90	-3	18.51
梭状回	R	30	-3	-39	9.60	92
	L	-33	-6	-36	6.68	25
岛盖部额下回	R	48	9	27	9.59	513
海马	L	-21	-30	-6	9.07	41
	R	21	-30	-3	8.56	68
扣带回	R	6	27	36	7.74	143
三角部额下回	L	-57	18	30	7.31	136
脑岛	L	-33	21	-6	6.82	30
眶额叶皮层下部	L	-48	48	-3	6.09	27
杏仁核	L	-30	0	-24	6.47	24

[1]	陈增祥, 何云, 李枭, 王琳. 你能看见我的努力吗：社会地位感知对消费者繁简偏好的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(9): 1106-1121.
[2]	彭彦琴. 中国传统情感心理学中“儒道互补”的情感模式[J]. 心理学报, 2002, 34(05): 98-103.
[3]	沈德立, 白学军, 阎国利. 不同书法知识经验者在书法字审美过程中的眼动特点研究[J]. 心理学报, 2000, 32(增刊): 56-59.