Beholders' sensorimotor engagement enhances aesthetic rating of pictorial facial expressions of pain.
Journal
Psychological research
ISSN: 1430-2772
Titre abrégé: Psychol Res
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0435062
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
16
06
2018
accepted:
27
07
2018
pubmed:
4
8
2018
medline:
1
9
2020
entrez:
4
8
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The present study addresses a novel issue by investigating whether beholders' sensorimotor engagement with the emotional content of works of art contributes to the formation of their objective aesthetic judgment of beauty. To this purpose, participants' sensorimotor engagement was modulated by asking them to overtly contract the Corrugator Supercilii facial muscles or to refrain from any voluntary facial movement while judging the aesthetic value of painful and neutral facial expressions in select examples of Renaissance and Baroque paintings. Results demonstrated a specific increase in the aesthetic rating of paintings showing painful facial expressions during the congruent activation of the Corrugator Supercilii muscles. Furthermore, participants' empathetic traits and expertise in art were found to correlate directly with the amplitude of the motor enactment effect on aesthetic judgments. For the first time, we show the role of bottom-up bodily driven sensorimotor processes in the objective aesthetic evaluation of works of art.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30073408
doi: 10.1007/s00426-018-1067-7
pii: 10.1007/s00426-018-1067-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
370-379Références
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 05;10(8):e0134241
pubmed: 26244368
Phys Life Rev. 2017 Jul;21:80-125
pubmed: 28347673
Neuroimage. 2010 Oct 15;53(1):355-63
pubmed: 20510372
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 09;8(10):e75241
pubmed: 24130693
Cereb Cortex. 2007 Jan;17(1):230-7
pubmed: 16495434
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2016 Mar;11(2):265-79
pubmed: 26993278
Front Psychol. 2015 Mar 17;6:291
pubmed: 25852608
Psychophysiology. 1986 Sep;23(5):567-89
pubmed: 3809364
Front Hum Neurosci. 2015 Sep 30;9:525
pubmed: 27242497
Front Hum Neurosci. 2011 Aug 23;5:79
pubmed: 21897813
Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Apr 26;10:160
pubmed: 27199697
Neuron. 2003 Oct 30;40(3):655-64
pubmed: 14642287
PLoS One. 2015 Feb 06;10(2):e0117696
pubmed: 25658327
Biol Psychol. 2013 Apr;93(1):246-54
pubmed: 23159877
Brain Cogn. 2009 Mar;69(2):306-15
pubmed: 18783864
Neuroreport. 2012 Mar 28;23(5):310-3
pubmed: 22357395
Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Jan 12;9:705
pubmed: 26793087
Cogn Process. 2018 May;19(2):147-165
pubmed: 28314942
Cognition. 2015 Apr;137:174-181
pubmed: 25659540
Trends Cogn Sci. 2007 May;11(5):197-203
pubmed: 17347026
Emotion. 2012 Dec;12(6):1398-403
pubmed: 22642357
Behav Brain Sci. 2017 Jan;40:e370
pubmed: 29342797
Brain Sci. 2015 Aug 26;5(3):357-68
pubmed: 26343732
J Psychosom Res. 1994 Jan;38(1):23-32
pubmed: 8126686
Front Hum Neurosci. 2012 Nov 16;6:311
pubmed: 23162456
Cognition. 2012 Oct;125(1):26-36
pubmed: 22986017
Emotion. 2012 Oct;12(5):1071-4
pubmed: 22309722
Sci Rep. 2015 Dec 09;5:16988
pubmed: 26647740
Brain. 2015 Mar;138(Pt 3):812-20
pubmed: 25614024
Psychol Sci. 2012 Dec;23(12):1479-81
pubmed: 23137968
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014 Apr 28;369(1644):20130177
pubmed: 24778374
Prog Brain Res. 2018;237:107-128
pubmed: 29779731
Emotion. 2013 Oct;13(5):852-66
pubmed: 23795586
Prog Brain Res. 2018;237:201-221
pubmed: 29779735
Pain. 2008 Oct 15;139(2):267-74
pubmed: 18502049
Iperception. 2017 Apr 03;8(2):2041669517693023
pubmed: 28491269
Soc Neurosci. 2007;2(3-4):167-78
pubmed: 18633815
Neuroimage. 2005 Mar;25(1):312-9
pubmed: 15734365
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2016 May;42(5):706-18
pubmed: 26618622
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Jun 03;8:391
pubmed: 24917808
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2017 Nov;70(11):2357-2370
pubmed: 27734764
Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Jul;18(7):370-5
pubmed: 24768244
Cogn Emot. 2014;28(6):1137-47
pubmed: 24383619