Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Although Artificial Intelligence (AI) can now produce exquisite artworks, evidence suggests that people hold biases against AI-generated art. Previous studies have primarily relied on self-report measures to examine the effects of creator labels and the actual source of artworks, with limited attention to viewers’ visual processing (e.g., fixation duration, pupil size, etc.) during art perception. Through three studies, the present study extends this literature by integrating eye-tracking with self-reports to investigate how top-down processing and bottom-up processing influence aesthetic judgments among lay participants. The results showed that a preference for paintings labeled as human-created under conditions in which participants could not reliably distinguish the artworks’ actual sources. Although the eye-tracking data indicated that artworks labeled as AI led to more dispersed gaze patterns, the overall results were mixed. These findings highlight the role of contextual and labeling information in aesthetic evaluations. Future research should promote transparency to reduce AI-label bias.

Keywords

art eye movements artificial intelligence aesthetic judgment top-down and bottom-up processing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akhtar

Z. B.

(2025). Generative visions: AI, human imagination, and the future of art. Contemporary Visual Culture and Art, 1(1), 37–53. https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5498-6458

Arriagada

(2020). CG-Art: Demystifying the anthropocentric bias of artistic creativity. Connection Science, 32(4), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540091.2020.1741514

Ashton

Patel

(2024). People don’t buy art, they buy artists’: Robot artists – work, identity, and expertise. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 30(2), 790–806. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565231220310

Augustin

M. D.

Wagemans

(2012). Empirical aesthetics, the beautiful challenge: An introduction to the special issue on art & perception. i-Perception, 3(7), 455–458. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0541aap

Bellaiche

Shahi

Turpin

M. H.

Ragnhildstveit

Sprockett

Barr

Christensen

Seli

(2023). Humans versus AI: Whether and why we prefer human-created compared to AI-created artwork. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 8(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-023-00499-6

Benjamin

(1935). The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction, 1936. Routledge.

Bernberg

R. E.

(1953). Prestige suggestion in art as communication. The Journal of Social Psychology, 38(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1953.9711433

Bianchi

Branchini

Uricchio

Bongelli

(2025). Creativity and aesthetic evaluation of AI-generated artworks: Bridging problems and methods from psychology to AI. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1648480. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1648480

Bradley

M. M.

Miccoli

Escrig

M. A.

Lang

P. J.

(2008). The pupil as a measure of emotional arousal and autonomic activation. Psychophysiology, 45(4), 602–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00654.x

10.

Brattico

(2015). From pleasure to liking and back: Bottom-up and top-down neural routes to the aesthetic enjoyment of music. In Huston

J. P.

Nadal

Mora

Agnati

L. F.

Cela-Conde

C. J.

(Eds.), Art, aesthetics and the brain (pp. 303–318). Oxford University Press.

11.

Brieber

Nadal

Leder

(2015). In the white cube: Museum context enhances the valuation and memory of art. Acta Psychologica, 154, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.11.004

12.

Brieber

Nadal

Leder

Rosenberg

(2014). Art in time and space: Context modulates the relation between art experience and viewing time. PloS one, 9(6), e99019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0099019

13.

Buscatto

Lévy

(2024). Art worlds in light of identity labeling. L’Année Sociologique, 74(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.3917/anso.241.0045

14.

Castellotti

D’Agostino

Del Viva

M. M.

(2024). Effectiveness of labels in digital art experience: Psychophysiological and behavioral evidence. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1342667. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1342667

15.

Cetinic

She

(2022). Understanding and creating art with AI: Review and outlook. ACM transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), 18(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3475799

16.

Chamberlain

Mullin

Scheerlinck

Wagemans

(2018). Putting the art in artificial: Aesthetic responses to computer-generated art. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000136

17.

Chatterjee

Cardillo

E. R.

(2022). Brain, beauty, and art: Essays bringing neuroaesthetics into focus. Oxford University Press.

18.

Chatterjee

Vartanian

(2016). Neuroscience of aesthetics. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1369(1), 172–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13035

19.

Chiarella

S. G.

Torromino

Gagliardi

D. M.

Rossi

Babiloni

Cartocci

(2022). Investigating the negative bias towards artificial intelligence: Effects of prior assignment of AI-authorship on the aesthetic appreciation of abstract paintings. Computers in Human Behavior, 137, 107406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107406

20.

Coeckelbergh

(2017). Can machines create art? Philosophy & Technology, 30(3), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0231-5

21.

Cohen

(1995). The further exploits of AARON, painter. Stanford Humanities Review, 4(2), 141–158.

22.

Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In S. Spacapan, & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social psychology of health (pp. 31-68). Sage.

23.

Corbetta

Shulman

G. L.

(2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(3), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn755

24.

Cui

Sato

Jackson

Jayarathna

Itoh

Yamani

(2024). Gaze transition entropy as a measure of attention allocation in a dynamic workspace involving automation. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 23405. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-74244-4

25.

Cunningham

C. V.

Radvansky

G. A.

Brockmole

J. R.

(2025). Human creativity versus artificial intelligence: Source attribution, observer attitudes, and eye movements while viewing visual art. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1509974. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1509974

26.

Cupchik, G. C. (1992). From perception to production: A multilevel analysis of the aesthetic process. In G. C. Cupchik, & J. Laszlo (Eds.), Emerging visions of the aesthetic process (pp. 61–81). Cambridge University Press.

27.

De Graef

Christiaens

d'Ydewalle

(1990). Perceptual effects of scene context on object identification. Psychological Research, 52(4), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00868064

28.

Déguernel

Sturm

(2023). Bias in favour or against computational creativity: A survey and reflection on the importance of socio-cultural con text in its evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Computational Creativity.

29.

De Rooij

(2025). Bias against artificial intelligence in visual art: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. advance online publication. https://dx.https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000833

30.

Di Dio

Ardizzi

Schieppati

S. V.

Massaro

Gilli

Gallese

Marchetti

(2025). Art made by artificial intelligence: The effect of authorship on aesthetic judgments. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 19(5), 1164–1176. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000602

31.

Dong

Conway

J. R.

Bonnefon

J.-F.

Shariff

Rahwan

(2024). Fears about artificial intelligence across 20 countries and six domains of application. American Psychologist, 81(1), 53–67. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001454

32.

Duerksen

G. L.

(1972). Some effects of expectation on evaluation of recorded musical performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 20(2), 268–272. https://doi.org/10.2307/3344093

33.

Elgammal

Liu

Elhoseiny

Mazzone

(2017). Can: Creative adversarial networks, generating “art” by learning about styles and deviating from style norms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.07068. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.07068

34.

Fekete

Maidhof

R. M.

Specker

Nater

U. M.

Leder

Lomonaco

(2022). Does art reduce pain and stress? A registered report protocol of investigating autonomic and endocrine markers of music, visual art, and multimodal aesthetic experience. PLOS ONE, 17(4), e0266545. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266545

35.

Fietta

Zecchinato

Di Stasi

Polato

Monaro

(2021). Dissociation between users’ explicit and implicit attitudes toward artificial intelligence: An experimental study. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 52(3), 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1109/THMS.2021.3125280

36.

Fortuna

Modliński

(2021). A (I) rtist or counterfeiter? Artificial intelligence as (D) evaluating factor on the art market. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 51(3), 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2021.1887032

37.

Gangadharbatla

(2022). The role of AI attribution knowledge in the evaluation of artwork. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 40(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276237421994697

38.

Garcia

M. B.

(2024). The paradox of artificial creativity: Challenges and opportunities of generative AI artistry. Creativity Research Journal, 37(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2024.2354622

39.

Gergen

K. J.

Breger

(1965). Two forms of inference and problems in the assessment of creativity. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 20, 215–216.

40.

Graf

L. K.

Landwehr

J. R.

(2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: The pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315574978

41.

Han

Long

Pang

(2017). Putting raters in Ratees’ shoes: Perspective taking and assessment of creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 29(3), 270–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2017.1360062

42.

Hermerén

(2024). Art and Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge University Press.

43.

Hernando

Campo

(2017). Does the artist's name influence the perceived value of an art work? International Journal of Arts Management, 19(2), 46–58. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44989692

44.

Hertzmann

(2018). Can computers create art? Arts, 7(2), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts7020018

45.

Hertzmann

(2025). Generative models for the psychology of art and aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 43(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374241288696

46.

Hitsuwari

Ueda

Yun

Nomura

(2023). Does human–AI collaboration lead to more creative art? Aesthetic evaluation of human-made and AI-generated haiku poetry. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107502

47.

Holmqvist

Nystr¨om

Andersson

Dewhurst

Jarodzka

Van de Weijer

(2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures. OUP.

48.

Hong

J. W.

(2018, June). Bias in perception of art produced by artificial intelligence. In International conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 290–303). Springer International Publishing.

49.

Hong

J. W.

Curran

N. M.

(2019). Artificial intelligence, artists, and art: Attitudes toward artwork produced by humans vs. Artificial intelligence. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications, and Applications (TOMM), 15(2s), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3326337

50.

Hristova, E., Georgieva, S., & Grinberg, M. (2011). Top-down influences on eye-movements during painting perception: The effect of task and titles. In A. Esposito, A. M. Esposito, R. Martone, V. C. Miiller, & G. Scarpetta (Eds.), Toward autonomous, adaptive, and context-aware multi-modal interfaces. Theoretical and practical issues. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 104–115). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18184-9_10

51.

Huang

Gopalakrishnan

Mittal

Zuena

Pytlarz

(2024). Analysis of human perception in distinguishing real and AI-generated faces: An eye-tracking based study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15498. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.15498

52.

Huo

Choi

(2024). Exploring emotional representation and interpretation in AI-generated art. Asia-pacific Journal of Convergent Research Interchange, 10(6), 533–546. https://doi.org/10.47116/apjcri.2024.06.38

53.

Hupbach

Janger

(2026). The impact of Pseudo-profound bullshit titles on memory for artist-created and AI-generated art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 44(1), 322–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374251314402

54.

Isham

E. A.

Ekstrom

A. D.

Banks

W. P.

(2010). Effects of youth authorship on the appraisal of paintings. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(4), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019308

55.

Israfilzade

(2020). What’s in a name experiment on the aesthetic judgments of art produced by artificial intelligence. Journal of Arts, 3(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.31566/arts.3.011

56.

Jacobs

Pazhoohi

Mullen

Kingstone

(2025). Comparative designs reveal preferences for human-generated rather than AI-generated art. Empirical Studies of the Arts, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762374251360129

57.

Josephson

Holmes

M. E.

(2002, March). Visual attention to repeated internet images: Testing the scanpath theory on the world wide web. In Proceedings of the 2002 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications (pp. 43–49).

58.

Kirk

Skov

Hulme

Christensen

M. S.

Zeki

(2009). Modulation of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. Neuroimage, 44(3), 1125–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.10.009

59.

Krejtz

Duchowski

Szmidt

Krejtz

González Perilli

Pires

Villalobos

(2015). Gaze transition entropy. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP), 13(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/2834121

60.

Krejtz

Szmidt

Duchowski

A. T.

Krejtz

(2014, March). Entropy-based statistical analysis of eye movement transitions. In Proceedings of the symposium on eye tracking research and applications (pp. 159–166).

61.

Laeng

Eidet

L. M.

Sulutvedt

Panksepp

(2016). Music chills: The eye pupil as a mirror to music’s soul. Consciousness and Cognition, 44, 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.07.009

62.

Leder

Belke

Oeberst

Augustin

(2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811

63.

Leder

Nadal

(2014). Ten years of a model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments: The aesthetic episode–developments and challenges in empirical aesthetics. British Journal of Psychology, 105(4), 443–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12084

64.

Le Meur

Baccino

(2013). Methods for comparing scanpaths and saliency maps: Strengths and weaknesses. Behavior Research Methods, 45(1), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0226-9

65.

Le Meur

Chevet

J. C.

(2010). Relevance of a feed-forward model of visual attention for goal-oriented and free-viewing tasks. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 19(11), 2801–2813. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2010.2052262 https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2010.2052262

66.

Liang

Zhu

Chatterjee

Wang

Zhang

(2024). Appreciating paintings of the virtuous: The influence of perceived artist morality on aesthetic judgment of their works. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 18(5), 777–789. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000512

67.

Lin

Leng

Wang

(2026). Beauty lost in AI: Diminished aesthetic judgments of AI paintings among Chinese viewers. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2026.2621277

68.

Lindell

A. K.

Mueller

(2011). Can science account for taste? Psychological insights into art appreciation. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(4), 453–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.539556

69.

Liu

Chu

Zhao

Zhai

(2025). Machine creativity: Aversion, appreciation, or indifference? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000739

70.

Locher

Krupinski

E. A.

Mello-Thoms

Nodine

C. F.

(2008). Visual interest in pictorial art during an aesthetic experience. Spatial Vision, 21(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856808782713762

71.

Locher

P. J.

(1995). A measure of the information content of visual art stimuli for studies in experimental aesthetics. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 13(2), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.2190/GMV3-PPWN-LU41-NQVU

72.

Loftus

G. R.

Mackworth

N. H.

(1978). Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4(4), 565–572. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.4.4.565

73.

Luke

S. G.

(2017). Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. Behavior Research Methods, 49(4), 1494–1502. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0809-y

74.

Magni

Park

Chao

M. M.

(2024). Humans as creativity gatekeepers: Are we biased against AI creativity? Journal of Business and Psychology, 39(3), 643–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-023-09910-x

75.

Massaro

Savazzi

Di Dio

Freedberg

Gallese

Gilli

Marchetti

(2012). When art moves the eyes: A behavioral and eye-tracking study. PloS one, 7(5), e37285. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037285

76.

Mazzone

Elgammal

(2019). Art, creativity, and the potential of artificial intelligence. Arts, 8(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/arts8010026

77.

McCormack

Gifford

Hutchings

(2019). Autonomy, authenticity, authorship and intention in computer generated art. In Ekárt

Liapis

Castro Pena

M. L.

(Eds.), Computational intelligence in music, sound, art and design (pp. 35–50). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16667-0_3

78.

McCormack

Hutchings

Gifford

Yee-King

Llano

M. T.

D’inverno

(2020). Design considerations for real-time collaboration with creative artificial intelligence. Organised Sound, 25(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355771819000451

79.

Mikalonytė

E. S.

Kneer

(2022). Can artificial intelligence make art?: Folk intuitions as to whether AI-driven robots can be viewed as artists and produce art. ACM transactions on Human-Robot Interaction (Thri), 11(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3530875

80.

Millet

Buehler

Kokkoris

M. D.

(2023). Defending humankind: Anthropocentric bias in the appreciation of AI art. Computers in Human Behavior, 143, 107707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107707

81.

Millis

(2001). Making meaning brings pleasure: The influence of titles on aesthetic experiences. Emotion, 1(3), 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.1.3.320

82.

Muth

Carbon

C.-C.

(2013). The aesthetic aha: On the pleasure of having insights into gestalt. Acta Psychologica, 144(1), 25–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.05.001

83.

Nake

(2005). Computer art. A personal recollection. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on creativity and cognition (pp. 54–62). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1056224.1056234

84.

Nayak

B. K.

Karmakar

(2019). A review of eye tracking studies related to visual aesthetic experience: A bottom-up approach. In: Chakrabarti

(eds), Research into Design for a Connected World. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies (vol 135). Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5977-4_33

85.

Neef

N. E.

Zabel

Papoli

Otto

(2025). Drawing the full picture on diverging findings: Adjusting the view on the perception of art created by artificial intelligence. AI & SOCIETY, 40(4), 2859–2879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02020-z

86.

Newman

G. E.

Bloom

(2012). Art and authenticity: The importance of originals in judgments of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026035

87.

Noll

A. M.

(1966). Human or machine: A subjective comparison of Piet Mondrian’s “Composition With Lines” (1917) and a computer generated picture. The Psychological Record, 16, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393635

88.

Norman

D. A.

Rumelhart

D. E.

(1981). The LNR approach to human information processing. Cognition, 10(1), 235–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(81)90051-2

89.

Oksanen

Cvetkovic

Akin

Latikka

Bergdahl

Chen

Savela

(2023). Artificial intelligence in fine arts: A systematic review of empirical research. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 1(2), 100004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100004

90.

Osińska

Szalach

Piotrowski

D. M.

(2024, June). Eye tracking as a tool for analysing human-AI image interactions. In 2024 Progress in applied electrical engineering (PAEE) (pp. 1–3). IEEE.

91.

Pelowski

Cabbai

Brinkmann

Mikuni

Hegelmaier

L. M.

Forster

Leder

(2025). The kitsch switch—or (when) do experts dislike thomas kinkade art? A study of time-based evaluation changes in top-down versus bottom-up assessment. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 19(3), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000302

92.

Privitera

C. M.

Stark

L. W.

(2002). Algorithms for defining visual regions-of-interest: Comparison with eye fixations. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 22(9), 970–982. https://doi.org/10.1109/34.877520

93.

Ragot

Martin

Cojean

(2020). AI-generated vs. human artworks. a perception bias towards artificial intelligence? Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3382892

94.

Ramachandran

V. S.

Hirstein

(1999). The science of art: A neurological theory of aesthetic experience. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6(6–7), 15–51.

95.

Rozental

de Rooij

(2025). Neither tool nor collaborator: Rethinking human–AI co-creativity in artistic practice with material engagement theory. PsyArXiv Preprints. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ktqgz_v1

96.

Rozental

van Dartel

de Rooij

(2025). How artists use AI as a responsive material for art creation. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Electronic/Emerging Art (ISEA2025). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gjdnw

97.

Runco

M. A.

(2023). AI Can only produce artificial creativity. Journal of Creativity, 33(3), 100063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100063

98.

Runco

M. A.

(2025). The authentic learning of humans is a creative process and very different from the artificially creative output of AI. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 59(3), e1520. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.1520

99.

Samo

Highhouse

(2025). Artificial intelligence and art: Identifying the aesthetic judgment factors that distinguish human- and machine-generated artwork. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 19(5), 1084–1098. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000570

100.

Satterthwaite

F. E.

(1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics Bulletin, 2(6), 110–114. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3002019 https://doi.org/10.2307/3002019

101.

Shan

Cryan

Wenger

Zheng

Hanocka

Zhao

B. Y.

(2023). Glaze: Protecting artists from style mimicry by {text-to-image} models. In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23) (pp. 2187–2204).

102.

Shannon

C. E.

(1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423. https://10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x

103.

Snowden

R. J.

O'Farrell

K. R.

Burley

Erichsen

J. T.

Newton

N. V.

Gray

N. S.

(2016). The pupil's response to affective pictures: Role of image duration, habituation, and viewing mode. Psychophysiology, 53(8), 1217–1223. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12668

104.

Szubielska

Imbir

(2021). The aesthetic experience of critical art: The effects of the context of an art gallery and the way of providing curatorial information. PLoS One, 16(5), e0250924. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250924

105.

Szubielska

Imbir

Fudali-Czyż

Augustynowicz

(2020). How does knowledge about an artist’s disability change the aesthetic experience? Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 16(2), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0292-z

106.

Torres

A. J.

Alberto

J. M. C.

Guieb

A. P. J.

Paray

A. D.

Villarama

J. A.

(2025). Language, identity, and ethics in AI-Driven art: Perspectives from Human Artists in Digital Environments. Language, Technology, and Social Media, 3(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.70211/ltsm.v3i1.137

107.

Vartanian

Navarrete

Chatterjee

Fich

L. B.

Gonzalez-Mora

J. L.

Leder

Modroño

Nadal

Rostrup

Skov

(2015). Architectural design and the brain: Effects of ceiling height and perceived enclosure on beauty judgments and approach-avoidance decisions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.006

108.

Wallraven

Cunningham

D. W.

Rigau

Feixas

Sbert

(2009). Aesthetic appraisal of art: from eye movements to computers. Paper presented at the computational aesthetics 2009: Eurographics workshop on computational aesthetics in graphics, visualization and imaging.

109.

Wang

(2024). Art innovation or plagiarism? Chinese students’ attitudes toward AI painting technology and influencing factors. Ieee Access, 12, 85795–85805. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3412176

110.

Wang

Xiao

(2025). Anxiety induced by artificial intelligence (AI) painting: An investigation based on the fear acquisition theory. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 17(Suppl 1), S214–S224. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001862

111.

Wang

Yuan

(2025). AI Vs. Human paintings? Deciphering public interactions and perceptions towards AI-generated paintings on TikTok. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 42(5), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2531284

112.

Mou

(2020). Investigating American and Chinese subjects’ explicit and implicit perceptions of AI-generated artistic work. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 106186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106186

113.

Yarbus

A. L.

(1967). Eye movements and vision. Plenum Press.

114.

Zhou

Kawabata

(2023). Eyes can tell: Assessment of implicit attitudes toward AI art. i-Perception, 14(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695231209846

115.

Zylinska

(2020). AI ART Machine Visions and Warped Dreams. Open humanities press.

When Labels Matter More: Behavioral and Eye-Tracking Evidence on Aesthetic Judgment of AI-Generated and Human-Created Paintings by Lay Viewers

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References