A Qualitative Analysis of Aesthetic Affinity Isaac Barr BIOL 451L-Neuroscience Lab

ABSTRACT A Qualitative Analysis of Aesthetic Affinity was a study done to assess the level of attraction that the test subjects had to certain types of images. The hypothesis developed was that there was an innate remnant of infantile reflexes designed to promote visual development. These reflexes caused a developing infant to instinctively look at, and focus on, any region of outstanding contrast, with particular emphasis put on high-contrast borders and patterns (Channel 4 ,2001). 10 abstract images were created, five with a distinct pattern and five made random. The subjects were shown these images and were asked to give them a rating from 0 to 5, zero being no affinity whatsoever, and 5 being very high affinity. Overall, the ratings for most of the images ran from the midline 3 to lower. There were three particular images, however, which on average received the highest rating across the board, and that lead to conclusions which did not necessarily debunk the hypothesis, but caused it to be interpreted differently. There was a special image placed in the group that also tested for remnants of infantile face recognition reflex. Results, however, were mediocre and unconvincing.

INTRODUCTION At birth, the brain of the infant is nowhere near its full potential. Even though the eyes function, the circuitry that binds the eyeball to the visual cortex is incomplete. As a result, the world is rendered blurry to a newborn; it is hard to tell where objects begin and end (Channel 4, 2001) The neuronal structure at that time period is very plastic, and there is an inborn ability to develop the visual circuitry to an adult level. This ability involves the instinctive and nearly reflexive preference to look at high contrast edges and patterns. (Hamer & Mirabella, 1990) Not only do infants have an attraction to patterns, but more so, an attraction to faces. It is well known that human babies start out with this ability (Mayell, 2005) and it is an essential ability to have, given the purely social nature of our species. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that, even in the adult brain, there may still be remnants of these infantile reflexes, and they may still present themselves on an unconscious level. It is the purpose of this study to try and find out if these behaviors manifest themselves, by asking subjects to rate images designed for this purpose. If remnants of these reflexes are retained, there should be overall higher preferences for images which represent elements mentioned above, such as sharp, contrasting borders or faces, than image which are mainly composed of random lines and colors. MATERIALS AND METHODS 10 images were created by me, using Microsoft Paint. Five were created with a distinct pattern, that is, straight lines, repeating shapes, and orderly makeup. The other five were created as no-pattern, curved or jagged lines and lack of orderly construction. They were all posted on a website, www.geocities.com/ijbarr1. There was an introduction page, telling the potential participant the length of time that the evaluation would take (a few minutes),

and also stating the participants goal to look at the image and give it a rating. Each subsequent page contained one of the images and further instructions to help the participant in his rating of the image.

This study was done using 13 subjects, all between 18-24 years of age. They were all of varying race and gender. Most of the evaluations were either carried out in ITS Lab 2, or in S214, whatever was more convenient for the subject. These locations were chosen for their relative quietness. However, any quiet location with a computer wherein the subject can concentrate fully on the images was an ideal spot for the conduction of this study. Here is a description of a typical evaluation. A potential subject would be told about the study and what is expected of him. After consent is given and the paperwork signed, the subject was lead to a computer and taken to the website. The researcher would be nearby, ready to record the responses as the participant flipped through the images. Each image page on the website contained the image toward the center, and blocks of text above and below it supplying further instruction to the participant. The top portion reads: Look at the image below for a bit and ask yourself these three questions: -Is this image interesting to me? -How easily are my eyes drawn to it? -How well does it hold my attention? The lower portion would read: Once you have thought about the questions, give this image a rating based on your affinity (liking) of the image. The rating is on a 0-5 scale (zero is no affinity whatsoever, while 5 is high affinity) Once you have told the researcher your response, please click the "Next" link to see the next image. Here is a further clarification of the rating scale, especially useful in the upcoming discussion:

0-No affinity whatsoever 1-Very little affinity 2-Some affinity 3-Moderate affinity 4-High affinity 5-Very high affinity No-Pattern Images NP1 NP2 NP3 NP4

NP5

P1

P2

Patterned Images P3

P4 (The face picture) P5

RESULTS Table 1: Overview of all Responses given by the Subjects

Subject Number Response to P1 Response to NP1 Response to NP2 Response to P2 Response to NP3 Response to P3 Response to P4 Response to NP4 Response to P5 Response to NP5

1 2 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 3

2 1 2 2 4 1 5 3 3 3 2

3 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 0

4 3 5 3 4 5 2 3 4 3 0

5 3 4 1 4 2 3 2 4 4 2

6 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 3 1 0

7 0 4 2 2 3 3 4 5 2 3

8 2 1 3 4 2 5 2 1 4 0

9 2 4 3 5 2 3 3 5 4 4

10 2 1 3 3 2 3 2 4 1 3

11 2 2 3 2 1 4 2 3 2 2

12 4 1 2 5 2 4 3 4 2 1

13 2 2 4 3 2 5 3 5 2 3

Table 1 features a layout of all of the responses given in the survey at a glance. The pictures (P=pattern, NP=No-pattern) are arranged in the order in which they were presented on the website. This format makes it easier to grasp a more global perspective of the affinity of the picture Table 2: Statistical Data Mean Response P1 1.76923 P2 3.1538 P3 3.2308 P4 2.538 P5 2.3846 NP1 2.46153 NP2 2.46153 NP3 1.9231 NP4 3.6923 NP5 1.76923

Standard Deviation 1.235 1.519 1.536 .77625 1.261 1.506 1.1266 1.32045 1.1094 1.42325

Table 2: The statistical data provided here is a general measure of the affinity of each image. The Mean Response is the average response for that image based on the mean of all the results for said image. The standard deviation is a measure of how distributed the affinity was, that is, the range of possible responses. As the standard deviation gets smaller, it is interpreted as a more unanimous response with less fluctuation.

DISCUSSION By closely examining the statistical data, one can draw several clues to ascertain the validity of the two hypotheses. The two hypotheses were thus: -There is still a remnant of the infantile visual development instinct which entails an affinity to images with clearly defined and contrasting patterns. -There is still a remnant of the infantile affinity to human faces and face-like imagery. First of all, the expectation was that the patterned images (or at least what was designated as patterned by this study) would have an overall higher rating than the no patterned images. The statistical data, however, indicates an overall mediocrity in the ratings of most of the pictures. There were, however, a few exceptions. The three highest rated images were P2, P3, and NP4; they each had a rating of >3.0. Remarkably, the highest rated image was NP4 which, according to Table 2, has a rating of 3.69 and standard deviation of 1.1094, the second lowest s.dev. in the study. (Compare to the lowest rated image, P1). At first glance, it may seem backwards. It does seem to go against the previously conceived expectation for the study. However, upon closer inspection of the images, alternative interpretations of the data can be made. What do P2, P3, and NP4 have in common, and what can they tell us about retention of infantile aesthetic affinity?

Looking at (from left to right, P2, P3 and NP4), and obvious feature jumps out. All three of theses images have various regions of contrast; light and dark areas arranged in a pattern. Remarkably, NP4, the highest rated image has some unique attributes of its own. It was designated as no-pattern because there were no straight lines present. However, with so many light and dark areas, the picture can be said to almost have a sort of pattern to it. It may not be a distinct order but it is apparent by the ratings that the subjects saw order in the midst of the chaos. Based on the data, and the content of the pictures, it is at least plausible to say that there is some sort of remnant affinity which in the least resembles the infantile response. This cannot, however be stated with certainty. One cannot take into account the individuality surrounding each subject. This is clear when looking at the results; ratings for one particular image can run the gamut from 0 to 5 on a person-to-person basis. Regarding the second hypothesis, which involves infantile remnants of face recognition, attention must be turned to image P4, the face picture That particular image was modeled after the face design used in many psychological face recognition studies: an oval with three dots formed in a down-pointing triangle.

The overall design was incorporated into P4 in order to elict a response of heightened affinity. However, according to the statistical data, this image garners a relatively mediocre rating. One remarkable aspect of this image was its very low value of standard deviation, that is, .776, the lowest in the study. This supports, then, the idea that the subjects were more resolute in the rating of this image than in any other. When it comes to connecting this information to the hypothesis surrounding it, it turns out that the hypothesis is quite doubtful. The one thing which casts a shadow of doubt is the lower than expected rating of P4. In essence, it is hard to tell whether the image was rated for the face patterns or its tessellating circle pattern. Another obstacle to this theory is the fact that the oval-withthree-dots was designed for young babes who have little experience with the world, and faces, for that matter. It seems that we simply outgrow our attraction for such a simple model in favor of more complex, real, human faces. In conclusion, the following verdicts have been applied to each hypothesis, based on the data and the content of the images Hypothesis 1: There is still a remnant of the infantile visual development instinct which entails an affinity to images with clearly defined and contrasting patterns. -Plausible, although not certainly true. Hypothesis 2: There is still a remnant of the infantile affinity to human faces and face-like imagery. -Doubtful, although not necessarily false.

References