Pupil responses to implied motion in figurative and abstract paintings.


Journal

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2021
Historique:
received: 07 04 2021
accepted: 28 09 2021
entrez: 11 10 2021
pubmed: 12 10 2021
medline: 25 11 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Motion can be perceived in static images, such as photos and figurative paintings, representing realistic subjects in motion, with or without directional information (e.g., motion blur or speed lines). Motion impression can be achieved even in non-realistic static images such as motion illusions and abstract paintings. It has been shown that visual motion processing affects the diameter of the pupil, responding differently to real, illusory, and implied motion in photographs (IM). It has been suggested that these different effects might be due to top-down modulations from different cortical areas underlying their processing. It is worthwhile to investigate pupillary response to figurative paintings, since they require an even higher level of interpretation than photos representing the same kind of subjects, given the complexity of cognitive processes involved in the aesthetic experience. Also, pupil responses to abstract paintings allows to study the effect of IM perception in representations devoid of real-life motion cues. We measured pupil responses to IM in figurative and abstract artworks depicting static and dynamic scenes, as rated by a large group of individuals not participating in the following experiment. Since the pupillary response is modulated by the subjective image interpretation, a motion rating test has been used to correct individual pupil data according to whether participants actually perceived the presence of motion in the paintings. Pupil responses to movies showing figurative and abstract subjects, and to motion illusions were also measured, to compare real and illusory motion with painted IM. Movies, both figurative and abstract, elicit the largest pupillary dilation of all static stimuli, whereas motion illusions cause the smallest pupil size, as previously shown. Interestingly, pupil responses to IM depend on the paintings' style. Figurative paintings depicting moving subjects cause more dilation than those representing static figures, and pupil size increases with the strength of IM, as already found with realistic photos. The opposite effect is obtained with abstract artworks. Abstract paintings depicting motion produce less dilation than those depicting stillness. In any case, these results reflect the individual subjective perception of dynamism, as the very same paintings can induce opposite responses in observer which interpreted it as static or dynamic. Overall, our data show that pupil size depends on high-level interpretation of motion in paintings, even when they do not represent real-world scenes. Our findings further suggest that the pupil is modulated by multiple top-down cortical mechanisms, involving the processing of motion, attention, memory, imagination, and other cognitive functions necessary for enjoying a complete aesthetic experience.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34634092
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258490
pii: PONE-D-21-11476
pmc: PMC8504727
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e0258490

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

J Comp Neurol. 1981 Jul 1;199(3):293-326
pubmed: 7263951
Psychophysiology. 2016 Aug;53(8):1217-23
pubmed: 27172997
J Neurosci. 2013 Jan 30;33(5):2199-204
pubmed: 23365255
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 05;10(8):e0134241
pubmed: 26244368
Psychophysiology. 2008 Jul;45(4):602-7
pubmed: 18282202
J Neurosci. 1991 Mar;11(3):641-9
pubmed: 2002358
Psychol Sci. 2014 Jan;25(1):188-97
pubmed: 24285432
Cereb Cortex. 1993 Mar-Apr;3(2):79-94
pubmed: 8490322
Trends Cogn Sci. 2015 Jan;19(1):1-3
pubmed: 25467128
Psychophysiology. 2014 Sep;51(9):815-8
pubmed: 24849784
Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 May 17;10:201
pubmed: 27242471
J Vis. 2020 Oct 1;20(10):14
pubmed: 33052409
J Cogn Neurosci. 2000 Jan;12(1):48-55
pubmed: 10769305
Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Jun;10(2):319-43
pubmed: 12921411
Front Hum Neurosci. 2011 Oct 21;5:120
pubmed: 22025912
PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e21852
pubmed: 21755004
J Neurophysiol. 1983 May;49(5):1127-47
pubmed: 6864242
Prog Brain Res. 2013;204:135-58
pubmed: 24041322
Front Hum Neurosci. 2016 Jan 12;9:705
pubmed: 26793087
Memory. 2011 May;19(4):398-405
pubmed: 21678156
Neuron. 1997 Jun;18(6):865-72
pubmed: 9208854
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Oct;64(10):1971-89
pubmed: 21838656
Science. 1980 Feb 1;207(4430):557-8
pubmed: 7352271
Spat Vis. 2007;20(6):545-60
pubmed: 18338460
Annu Rev Neurosci. 1987;10:97-129
pubmed: 3551767
Psychophysiology. 2011 Oct;48(10):1346-53
pubmed: 21575007
Br J Ophthalmol. 1981 Nov;65(11):754-9
pubmed: 7326222
J Vis. 2013 May 17;13(6):
pubmed: 23685390
J Neurophysiol. 2004 Apr;91(4):1699-705
pubmed: 15010496
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2004;8(4):364-82
pubmed: 15582859
Behav Res Methods. 2011 Dec;43(4):1171-81
pubmed: 21637943
Psychophysiology. 2008 Jan;45(1):130-40
pubmed: 17910733
J Vis. 2017 Jul 1;17(8):1
pubmed: 28672367
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2019 Jul;198:102882
pubmed: 31288107
PLoS One. 2013 Oct 29;8(10):e78168
pubmed: 24205144
Vision Res. 2011 Jan;51(1):187-94
pubmed: 21092745
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010 Nov;72(8):2087-95
pubmed: 21097853
Vision Res. 2011 Apr 22;51(8):836-52
pubmed: 20965208
Nature. 1980 Mar 13;284(5752):164-5
pubmed: 7360241
Science. 1966 Dec 23;154(3756):1583-5
pubmed: 5924930
Can J Exp Psychol. 1993 Jun;47(2):310-39
pubmed: 8364533
J Neurosci. 1995 Apr;15(4):3215-30
pubmed: 7722658
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 1997 Aug;235(8):494-500
pubmed: 9285218
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Jan;7(1):18-27
pubmed: 26168419
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1969 Apr 21;156(2):931-50
pubmed: 5258025
Brain Cogn. 2009 Jun;70(1):84-91
pubmed: 19223099
Science. 1964 Mar 13;143(3611):1190-2
pubmed: 17833905
Percept Mot Skills. 1973 Dec;37(3):1000-2
pubmed: 4764491
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Feb 5;105(5):1704-9
pubmed: 18250340
J Neurosci. 2019 Apr 3;39(14):2664-2685
pubmed: 30777886
Neuron. 2016 Jan 6;89(1):221-34
pubmed: 26711118
Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2015 Oct;24(5):374-378
pubmed: 26494950
Proc Biol Sci. 1993 Jun 22;252(1335):215-22
pubmed: 8394582
Psychol Bull. 1982 Mar;91(2):276-92
pubmed: 7071262
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1990 Jan;31(1):156-62
pubmed: 2137115
Cogn Neurosci. 2017 Jan;8(1):59-68
pubmed: 26429631
J Neurophysiol. 2003 Jun;89(6):3179-89
pubmed: 12611973
Proc Biol Sci. 1997 Mar 22;264(1380):431-6
pubmed: 9107056
J Vis. 2014 May 30;14(5):14
pubmed: 24879861
Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 Aug 15;71(4):78
pubmed: 17786266
Front Neurol. 2018 Dec 13;9:1070
pubmed: 30631301
Iperception. 2012;3(1):1-17
pubmed: 23145263
Int J Psychophysiol. 2012 Jan;83(1):56-64
pubmed: 22019480
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):437-42
pubmed: 9176953
Perception. 2002;31(10):1165-93
pubmed: 12430945
Exp Brain Res. 1999 Aug;127(4):355-70
pubmed: 10480271
J Vis. 2013 May 17;13(6):
pubmed: 23685391
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Apr 20;101(16):6321-5
pubmed: 15079079
Iperception. 2017 Aug 11;8(4):2041669517717754
pubmed: 28835810
Cereb Cortex. 1995 Jan-Feb;5(1):39-55
pubmed: 7719129
Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1990;55:717-27
pubmed: 2132849
Behav Res Methods. 2018 Feb;50(1):94-106
pubmed: 29330763
J Neurophysiol. 2003 Jun;89(6):3168-78
pubmed: 12611972
Perception. 2013;42(8):828-34
pubmed: 24303747
Science. 1972 Jul 7;177(4043):77-80
pubmed: 5041781
Curr Biol. 1996 Aug 1;6(8):1015-9
pubmed: 8805334
Int J Psychophysiol. 2004 Mar;52(1):77-86
pubmed: 15003374
Science. 1960 Aug 5;132(3423):349-50
pubmed: 14401489
Eur J Neurosci. 1998 May;10(5):1563-73
pubmed: 9751129
Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012;21(2):90-95
pubmed: 29093614
Somatosens Mot Res. 2015;32(4):207-10
pubmed: 26422799
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Feb 7;109(6):2162-7
pubmed: 22308422
Psychophysiology. 1973 May;10(3):270-94
pubmed: 4702521
PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20910
pubmed: 21677786
Psychol Sci. 2006 Sep;17(9):799-806
pubmed: 16984298
Brain Res. 1971 Dec 24;35(2):528-32
pubmed: 5002708
J Am Optom Assoc. 1995 Jul;66(7):415-8
pubmed: 7560728
Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6
pubmed: 9176952
Annu Rev Neurosci. 2005;28:403-50
pubmed: 16022602
J Vis. 2015 Feb 02;15(2):1
pubmed: 25645434
Emotion. 2017 Feb;17(1):131-140
pubmed: 27504596
PLoS One. 2021 Jul 1;16(7):e0254105
pubmed: 34197536
Perception. 2007;36(12):1715-29
pubmed: 18283923
Psychol Sci. 2008 Mar;19(3):276-83
pubmed: 18315801
Neuroreport. 2009 Oct 28;20(16):1466-70
pubmed: 19770688
Front Hum Neurosci. 2011 Aug 23;5:79
pubmed: 21897813

Auteurs

Serena Castellotti (S)

Department of Neurofarba, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Lisa Scipioni (L)

Department of Neurofarba, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Stefano Mastandrea (S)

Department of Education, Roma Tre University, Florence, Italy.

Maria Michela Del Viva (MM)

Department of Neurofarba, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.

Articles similaires

Humans Male Exercise Young Adult Adult
1.00
Humans Male Female Emotions Pupil
Humans Vagus Nerve Stimulation Pupil Male Adult

Classifications MeSH