AugustinM. D.DefranceschiB.FuchsH. K.CarbonC. C.HutzlerF. (2011). The neural time course of art perception: An ERP study on the processing of style versus content in art. Neuropsychologia, 49, 2071–2081.
2.
AugustinM. D.WagemansJ.CarbonC. C. (2012). All is beautiful? Generality vs. specificity of word usage in visual aesthetics. Acta Psychologica, 139, 187–201.
3.
CarbonC. C. (2012). Dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Human Vision and Electronic Imaging XVII, 8291(1A), 1–6 (SPIE Proceedings). doi:10.1117/12.916468.
4.
CarbonC. C.FaerberS. J.GergerG.ForsterM.LederH. (2013). Innovation is appreciated when we feel safe: On the situational dependence of the appreciation of innovation. International Journal of Design, 7(2), 43–51.
5.
CarbonC. C.JakeschM. (2013). A model for haptic aesthetic processing and its implications for design. Proceedings of the IEEE, 101(9), 1–11. doi:10.1109/JPROC.2012.2219831.
6.
CarbonC. C.LederH. (2005). The Repeated Evaluation Technique (RET): A method to capture dynamic effects of innovativeness and attractiveness. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 587–601. doi: 10.1002/acp.1098.
7.
Cela-CondeC. J.García-PrietoJ.RamascoJ. J.MirassoC. R.BajoR.MunarE.MaestúF. (2013). Dynamics of brain networks in the aesthetic appreciation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 110, 10454–10461. doi:10.1073/pnas.1302855110.
8.
ChatterjeeA. (2011a). Visual art. In GottfriedJ. A. (Ed.), Neurobiology of sensation and reward (pp. 391–404). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
9.
ChatterjeeA. (2011b). Neuroaesthetics: A coming of age story. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 53–62.
10.
CuttingJ. E.DeLongJ. E.BrunickK. L. (2011). Visual activity in Hollywood film: 1935 to 2005 and beyond. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 115–125.
11.
HekkertP.van WieringenP. C. W. (1996). The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta Psychologica, 94, 117–131.
12.
JacobsenT.BuchtaK.KöhlerM.SchrögerE. (2004). The primacy of beauty in judging the aesthetics of objects. Psychological Reports, 3, 1253–1260.
13.
KosslynS. M.GanisG.ThompsonW. L. (2003). Mental imagery: Against the nihilistic hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 109–111. doi:10.1016/S1364–6613(03)00025–1.
14.
LederH.BelkeB.OeberstA.AugustinD. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508.
15.
MartindaleC. (1990). The clockwork muse: The predictability of artistic change. New York: Basic Books.
16.
MuthC.CarbonC. C. (2013). The aesthetic aha: On the pleasure of having insights into Gestalt. Acta Psychologica, 144, 25–30.
17.
PalmerS. E.GriscomW. S. (2012). Accounting for taste: Individual differences in preference for harmony. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 453–461. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0355-2.
18.
PalmerS. E.SchlossK. B. (2010a). An ecological valence theory of human color preference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 107, 8877–8882. doi:10.1073/pnas.0906172107.
19.
PalmerS. E.SchlossK. B. (2010b). Human preference for individual colors. Human Vision and Electronic Imaging XV, 7527 (SPIE Proceedings). doi:10.1117/12.849110.
20.
PepperellR. (2011). Connecting art and the brain: An artist's perspective on visual indeterminacy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 5(84), 1–12. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00084.
21.
PylyshynZ. (2003). Return of the mental image: Are there really pictures in the brain?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 113–118.