Display options
Cite
Boccia M, Barbetti S, Piccardi L, et al. Neuropsychology of Aesthetic Judgment of Ambiguous and Non-Ambiguous Artworks. Behav Sci (Basel). 2017;7(1)doi: 10.3390/bs7010013.
Boccia, M., Barbetti, S., Piccardi, L., Guariglia, C., & Giannini, A. M. (2017). Neuropsychology of Aesthetic Judgment of Ambiguous and Non-Ambiguous Artworks. Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 7(1), . https://doi.org/10.3390/bs7010013
Boccia, Maddalena, et al. "Neuropsychology of Aesthetic Judgment of Ambiguous and Non-Ambiguous Artworks." Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) vol. 7,1 (2017). doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/bs7010013
Boccia M, Barbetti S, Piccardi L, Guariglia C, Giannini AM. Neuropsychology of Aesthetic Judgment of Ambiguous and Non-Ambiguous Artworks. Behav Sci (Basel). 2017 Mar 18;7(1). doi: 10.3390/bs7010013. PMID: 28335460; PMCID: PMC5371757.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Behav Sci (Basel). 2017 Mar 18;7(1). doi: 10.3390/bs7010013.

Neuropsychology of Aesthetic Judgment of Ambiguous and Non-Ambiguous Artworks.

Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)

Maddalena Boccia, Sonia Barbetti, Laura Piccardi, Cecilia Guariglia, Anna Maria Giannini

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Rome, Italy. [email protected].
  2. Cognitive and Motor Rehabilitation Unit, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia of Rome, 00179 Rome, Italy. [email protected].
  3. Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Rome, Italy. [email protected].
  4. Cognitive and Motor Rehabilitation Unit, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia of Rome, 00179 Rome, Italy. [email protected].
  5. Cognitive and Motor Rehabilitation Unit, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia of Rome, 00179 Rome, Italy. [email protected].
  6. Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, L'Aquila University, 67100 L'Aquila, Italy. [email protected].
  7. Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Rome, Italy. [email protected].
  8. Cognitive and Motor Rehabilitation Unit, IRCCS Fondazione Santa Lucia of Rome, 00179 Rome, Italy. [email protected].
  9. Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, via dei Marsi 78, 00185 Rome, Italy. [email protected].

PMID: 28335460 PMCID: PMC5371757 DOI: 10.3390/bs7010013

Abstract

Several affective and cognitive processes have been found to be pivotal in affecting aesthetic experience of artworks and both neuropsychological as well as psychiatric symptoms have been found to affect artistic production. However, there is a paucity of studies directly investigating effects of brain lesions on aesthetic judgment. Here, we assessed the effects of unilateral brain damage on aesthetic judgment of artworks showing part/whole ambiguity. We asked 19 unilaterally brain-damaged patients (10 left and 9 right brain damaged patients, respectively LBDP and RBDP) and 20 age- and education-matched healthy individuals (controls, C) to rate 10 Arcimboldo's ambiguous portraits (AP), 10 realistic Renaissance portraits (RP), 10 still life paintings (SL), and 10 Arcimboldo's modified portraits where only objects/parts are detectable (AO). They were also administered a Navon task, a facial recognition test, and evaluated on visuo-perceptual and visuo-constructional abilities. Patients included in the study did not show any deficits that could affect the capability to explore and enjoy artworks. SL and RP was not affected by brain damage regardless of its laterality. On the other hand, we found that RBDP liked AP more than the C participants. Furthermore, we found a positive correlation between aesthetic judgment of AP and visuo-perceptual skills even if the single case analyses failed to find a systematic association between neuropsychological deficits and aesthetic judgment of AP. On the whole, the present data suggest that a right hemisphere lesion may affect aesthetic judgment of ambiguous artworks, even in the absence of exploration or constructional deficits.

Keywords: art and brain; artists; brain damage; brain lesion; neuroaesthetics

References

  1. Behav Brain Res. 2015 Feb 1;278:147-54 - PubMed
  2. Funct Neurol. 1987 Apr-Jun;2(2):189-94 - PubMed
  3. Front Psychol. 2013 Mar 07;4:107 - PubMed
  4. J Cogn Neurosci. 2007 Jul;19(7):1081-8 - PubMed
  5. Neuropsychologia. 2002;40(8):1196-208 - PubMed
  6. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014 Jul;18(7):370-5 - PubMed
  7. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008 Feb;9(2):148-58 - PubMed
  8. Brain Cogn. 2008 Feb;66(1):65-72 - PubMed
  9. Perception. 2016 Oct;45(10 ):1203-8 - PubMed
  10. Neurol Clin. 2003 May;21(2):501-20 - PubMed
  11. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010 Nov;81(11):1280-7 - PubMed
  12. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2012;34(10):1065-79 - PubMed
  13. Neuroimage. 2011 Sep 1;58(1):250-8 - PubMed
  14. Cortex. 2011 Jul-Aug;47(7):854-62 - PubMed
  15. Brain. 1966 Mar;89(1):53-82 - PubMed
  16. J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-98 - PubMed
  17. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2014 Aug;76(6):1516-21 - PubMed
  18. Conscious Cogn. 2004 Mar;13(1):173-96 - PubMed
  19. PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e21852 - PubMed
  20. J Neurophysiol. 2004 Apr;91(4):1699-705 - PubMed
  21. J Alzheimers Dis. 2015;45(2):483-94 - PubMed
  22. Neuropsychologia. 2004;42(11):1568-83 - PubMed
  23. Prog Brain Res. 2013;204:3-17 - PubMed
  24. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2016 Mar;11(2):265-79 - PubMed
  25. Neuroimage. 2006 Jan 1;29(1):276-85 - PubMed
  26. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008 Mar;1124:1-38 - PubMed
  27. Front Hum Neurosci. 2011 Oct 14;5:109 - PubMed
  28. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016 Jan;60:65-71 - PubMed
  29. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1991 Dec;54(12):1082-9 - PubMed
  30. Neuropsychology. 2009 Mar;23(2):135-43 - PubMed
  31. Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Jun 02;8:389 - PubMed
  32. Prog Neurobiol. 2008 Nov;86(3):216-44 - PubMed

Publication Types