The term “Perceptual goodness” refers to the strength, obviousness, or salience of a visual configuration. Recent work has found strong agreement between theoretical, neural, and behavioural measures of perceptual goodness across a wide range of different symmetrical visual patterns. We used these pattern types again to explore the relationship between perceptual goodness and aesthetic preference. A group of 50 U.K. participants rated the patterns on a 0 to 100 scale. Preference ratings positively correlated with four overlapping measures of perceptual goodness. We then replicated this finding in Egypt, suggesting that our results reflect universal aspects of human preference. The third experiment provided consistent results with a different stimulus set. We conclude that symmetry is an aesthetic primitive that is attractive because of the way it is processed by the visual system.
ArnheimR. (1974). Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye. Berkeley: University of California Press.
2.
AttneaveF. (1954). Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psychological Review, 61, 183–193. doi:10.1037/h0054663
3.
BarlowH. B.ReevesB. C. (1979). Versatility and absolute efficiency of detecting mirror symmetry in random dot displays. Vision Research, 19, 783–793. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(79)90154-8
4.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48.
5.
BerlyneD. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8, 279–286. doi:10.3758/BF03212593
6.
BertaminiM.MakinA. D. J. (2014). Brain activity in response to visual symmetry. Symmetry, 6, 975–996. doi:10.3390/sym6040975
7.
BertaminiM.MakinA. D. J.RamponeG. (2013). Implicit association of symmetry with positive valence, high arousal and simplicity. i-Perception, 4, 317–327.
8.
BertaminiM.PalumboL.GheorghesT. N.GalatsidasM. (2016). Do observers like curvature or do they dislike angularity?British Journal of Psychology, 107, 154–178. doi:10.1111/bjop.12132
9.
BirkhoffG. D. (1932). Aesthetic measure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
BodeC.HelmyM.BertaminiM. (2017). A cross-cultural comparison for preference for symmetry: comparing British and Egyptians non-experts. Psihologija, 50(3), 383–402.
11.
BoselieF.LeeuwenbergE. (1985). Birkhoff revisited: Beauty as a function of effect and means. The American Journal of Psychology, 98, 1–39. doi:10.2307/1422765
12.
BrandA.BradleyM. T. (2012). More voodoo correlations: When average-based measures inflate correlations. The Journal of General Psychology, 139, 260–272. doi:10.1080/00221309.2012.703711
13.
CarbonC. C. (2010). The cycle of preference: Long-term dynamics of aesthetic appreciation. Acta Psychologia, 134, 233–244. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.02.004
14.
CotterK. N.SilviaP. J.BertaminiM.PalumboL.VartanianO. (2017). Curve appeal: Exploring individual differences in preference for curved versus angular objects. i-Perception, 8, 2.
15.
CsathóÁ.van der VloedG.van der HelmP. A. (2003). Blobs strengthen repetition but weaken symmetry. Vision Research, 43, 993–1007. doi:10.1016/S0042-6989(03)00073-7
16.
EisenmanR. (1967). Complexity-simplicity: I. Preference for symmetry and rejection of complexity. Psychonomic Science, 84, 169–170.
17.
EysenckH. (1941). The empirical determination of an aesthetic formula. Psychological Review, 48, 83–92. doi:10.1037/h0062483
18.
GarnerW. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
GartusA.LederH. (2013). The small step toward asymmetry: Aesthetic judgment of broken symmetries. i-Perception, 4, 361–364.
20.
GlassL. (1969). Moire effect from random dots. Nature, 223, 578–580.
21.
GonzalezV. (2001). Beauty and Islam: Aesthetics in Islamic art and architecture. London, England: I.B. Tauris.
22.
GrammerK.FinkB.MøllerA. P.ThornhillR. (2003). Darwinian aesthetics: Sexual selection and the biology of beauty. Biological Reviews, 78, 385–407. doi:10.1017/s1464793102006085
23.
HochbergJ.McAlisterE. (1953). A quantitative approach to figural goodness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 361–364. doi:10.1037/h0055809
24.
HolmesT.ZankerJ. M. (2012). Using an oculomotor signature as an indicator of aesthetic preference. i-Perception, 3, 426–439. doi:10.1068/i0448aap
25.
Koffka. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.
26.
KohlerP. J.ClarkeA.YakovlevaA.LiuY.NorciaA. M. (2016). Representation of maximally regular textures in human visual cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 714–729. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2962-15.2016
27.
KubovyM. (2000). Visual aesthetics. In KazdinA. E. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28.
LattoR.BrainD.KellyB. (2000). An oblique effect in aesthetics: Homage to Mondrian (1872–1944). Perception, 29, 981–987. doi:10.1068/p2352
29.
LittleA. (2014). Domain specificity in human symmetry preferences: Symmetry is most pleasant when looking at human faces. Symmetry, 6, 222–233. doi:10.3390/sym6020222
30.
MachE. (1886). The analysis of sensations and the relation of the physical to the psychical. New York, NY: Dover Publications.
31.
MakinA. D. J. (2017). The gap between aesthetic science and aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 24, 184–213.
32.
MakinA. D. J.PecchinendaA.BertaminiM. (2012). Implicit affective evaluation of visual symmetry. Emotion, 12, 1021–1030. doi:10.1037/a00269241
33.
MakinA. D. J.WiltonM. M.PecchinendaA.BertaminiM. (2012). Symmetry perception and affective responses: A combined EEG/EMG study. Neuropsychologia, 50, 3250–3261. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.10.003
34.
MakinA. D. J.WrightD.RamponeG.PalumboL.GuestM.SheehanR., . . . BertaminiM. (2016). An electrophysiological index of perceptual goodness. Cerebral Cortex, 26, 4416–4434. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhw255
35.
ManciniS.SallyS. L.GurnseyR. (2005). Detection of symmetry and anti-symmetry. Vision Research, 45, 2145–2160. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2005.02.004
36.
MarkovicS. (2012). Components of aesthetic experience: Aesthetic fascination, aesthetic appraisal, and aesthetic emotion. i-Perception, 3, 1–17. doi:10.1068/i0450aap
37.
McManusC. (2005). Symmetry and asymmetry in art and aesthetics. European Review, 13, 157–180.
38.
NorciaA. M.CandyT. R.PettetM. W.VildavskiV. Y.TylerC. W. (2002). Temporal dynamics of the human response to symmetry. Journal of Vision, 2, 132–139. doi:10.1167/2.2.1
39.
NucciM.WagemansJ. (2007). Goodness of regularity in dot patterns: Global symmetry, local symmetry, and their interactions. Perception, 36, 1305–1319. doi:10.1068/p5794
40.
OliversC. N. L.ChaterN.WatsonD. G. (2004). Holography does not account for goodness: A critique of van der Helm and Leeuwenberg (1996). Psychological Review, 111, 242–260. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.111.1.242
41.
PalmerS. E.SchlossK. B. (2010). An ecological valence theory of human color preference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 8877–8882. doi:10.1073/pnas.0906172107
42.
PalmerS. E.SchlossK. B.SammartinoJ. (2013). Visual aesthetics and human preference. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 77–107. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100504
43.
PalumboL.BertaminiM.MakinA. (2015). Scaling of the extrastriate neural response to symmetry. Vision Research, 117, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2015.10.002
44.
PeirceJ. W. (2007). PsychoPy: Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162, 8–13. doi:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017
45.
PomerantzJ. R.KubovyM. (1986). Theoretical approaches to perceptual organization: Simplicity and likelihood principles. In BoffK. R.KaufmanL.ThomasJ. P. (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (pp. 361–345). New York, NY: Wiley.
46.
RamachandranV. S.HirsteinW. (1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6, 15–31.
47.
ReberR. (2012). Processing fluency, aesthetic pleasure, and culturally shared taste. In ShimamuraA. P.PalmerS. E. (Eds.), Aesthetic science: Connecting mind, brain, and experience (pp. 223–249). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
48.
RediesC. (2007). A universal model of esthetic perception based on the sensory coding of natural stimuli. Spatial Vision, 21, 97–117. doi:10.1163/156856807782753886
49.
RobertsM. N. (2007). Complexity and aesthetic preference for diverse visual stimuli (PhD Thesis). Universitat de les Illes Balears, Palma, Spain.
50.
SasakiY.VanduffelW.KnutsenT.TylerC. W.TootellR. (2005). Symmetry activates extrastriate visual cortex in human and nonhuman primates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 3159–3163. doi:10.1073/pnas.0500319102
51.
SoueifM. I.EysenckH. J. (1971). Cultural differences in aesthetic judgment. International Journal of Psychology, 6, 293–198.
52.
SpeharB.CliffordC. W. G.NewellB. R.TaylorR. P. (2003). Universal aesthetic of fractals. Computers & Graphics, 27, 813–820. doi:10.1016/s0097-8493(03)00154-7
53.
Van de CruysS.WagemansJ. (2011). Putting reward in art: A tentative prediction error account of visual art. i-Perception, 2, 1035–1062. doi:10.1068/i0466aap
54.
van der HelmP. A. (2010). Weber-Fechner behavior in symmetry perception?Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 72, 1854–1864. doi:10.3758/app.72.7.1854
55.
van der HelmP. A. (2011). The influence of perception on the distribution of multiple symmetries in nature and art. Symmetry, 3, 54–71. doi:10.3390/sym3010054
56.
van der HelmP. A.LeeuwenbergE. L. J. (1996). Goodness of visual regularities: A nontransformational approach. Psychological Review, 103, 429–456. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.103.3.429
57.
van der HelmP. A.LeeuwenbergE. L. J. (2004). Holographic goodness is not that bad: Reply to Olivers, Chater, and Watson (2004). Psychological Review, 111, 261–273. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.111.1.261
58.
van der HelmP. A.TrederM. S. (2009). Detection of (anti)symmetry and (anti)repetition: Perceptual mechanisms versus cognitive strategies. Vision Research, 49, 2754–2763. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2009.08.015
59.
WagemansJ. (in press). Perceptual organization. In WixtedJ. T. (Series Ed.) & SerencesJ. (Vol. Ed.), Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience, volume 2, sensation, perception, and attention. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
60.
WenderothP. (1994). The salience of vertical symmetry. Perception, 23, 221–236. doi:10.1068/p230221
61.
WenderothP.WelshS. (1998). Effects of pattern orientation and number of symmetry axes on the detection of mirror symmetry in dot and solid patterns. Perception, 27, 965–976. doi:10.1068/p270965
62.
WertheimerM. (1923). Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt II. Psychologische Forschung, 4, 301–350 (Translation published in W Ellis, 1938. A source book of Gestalt psychology (pp. 71–88). London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul).
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
