A Review of Eye Tracking Studies Related to Visual Aesthetic Experience: A Bottom-Up Approach

  • Bighna Kalyan NayakEmail author
  • Sougata Karmakar
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 135)


In the context of visual aesthetics, a bottom-up approach deals with the features of the visual stimuli such as form, texture, color, novelty, complexity, composition, contrast, and order. These features influence subject’s perception during an aesthetic experience. As per philosophy, both subject and object should be present to have an aesthetic experience. Though there are several attempts reported by the researchers to evaluate visual aesthetics using biometric technologies, eye tracking has been found to be an efficient technique to investigate bottom-up aesthetic processes that operate with both object and subject. As reported by earlier researchers, the eye tracking-based studies convey meaningful visual aesthetic properties from visual exploration patterns of the subjects and have been reviewed thoroughly in the present paper. Different types of human visual behavior during aesthetic visual exploration (specific and diversive) have also been mentioned with citation of earlier works. Most of the reported eye tracking-based researches are limited to saliency study and have used unstructured variables to evaluate visual aesthetics. It has been observed from the available literature that the level of complexity and quality of composition of the visuals may be considered as the well-accepted measures to judge the aesthetic experience. Association of various sub-variables of composition (symmetry, balance, and proportion) and complexity (number of elements, variety of elements, and order of elements) with different eye tracking variables (fixation frequency, fixation duration, and first fixation) has already been reported by the researchers in a discrete manner. Hence, there is a need for the future research to establish correlations between various eye tracking variables and the measures of aesthetics with the ultimate aim of objective-measurement of visual aesthetics.


Aesthetic Evaluation Attention Perception Visual composition Visual complexity Visual exploration Visual behavior 


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Kant, I.: Critique of Judgment. Hackett Publishing Company (1790)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mcclelland, K.A.: Aesthetic experience and artful conduct. Educ. Cult. 21, 44–62 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. Jossey Bass (1975)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maslow, A.H.: Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences (1964)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tellegen, A., Atkinson, G.: Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (“absorption”), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 83, 268 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., Augustin, D.: A model of aesthetics appreciation and aesthetic judgment. Br. J. Psychol. 95, 489–508 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Apter, M.J.: Reversal theory, cognitive synergy and the arts. Adv. Psychol. 19, 411–426 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cupchik, G.C., Vartanian, O., Crawley, A., Mikulis, D.J.: Viewing artworks: contributions of cognitive control and perceptual facilitation to aesthetic experience. Brain Cogn. 70, 84–91 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Massaro, D., Savazzi, F., Di Dio, C., Freedberg, D., Gallese, V., Gilli, G., Marchetti, A.: When art moves the eyes: a behavioral and eye-tracking study. PLoS One 7 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hekkert, P., Van Wieringen, P.C.W.: The impact of level of expertise on the evaluation of original and altered versions of post-impressionistic paintings. Acta Psychol. (Amst) 94, 117–131 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berlyne, D.E.: Aesthetics and Psychobiology (1971)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boselie, F., Leeuwenberg, E.: Birkhoff revisited: beauty as a function of effect and means. Am. J. Psychol. 98, 1–39 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hekkert, P., Leder, H.: Product aesthetics. In: Product Experience, pp. 259–285 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramachandran, V.S., Hirstein, W.: The science of art: a neurological theory of aesthetic experience. J. Conscious. Stud. 6, 15–51 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baxter, M.: Product design: practical methods for the systematic development of new products (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wallraven, C., Cunningham, D., Rigau, J., Feixas, M., Sbert, M.: Aesthetic appraisal of art—from eye movements to computers. Comput. Aesthet. Graph. Vis. Imaging, 137–144 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Graham, D.J., Friedenberg, J.D., McCandless, C.H., Rockmore, D.N.: Preference for art: similarity, statistics, and selling price. Hum. Vis. Electron. Imaging. (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gombrich, E.H.: Art and Illusion (1960)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Adelson, E.H.: Perceptual organization and the judgement of brightness. Nature 262, 2042–2044 (1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Albright, T.D.: On the perception of probable things: neural substrates of associative memory, imagery, and perception. Neuron 74, 227–245 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chatterjee, A.: Prospects for a cognitive neuroscience of visual aesthetics. (2004)
  23. 23.
    Santayana, G.: The Sense of Beauty: Being the Outlines of Aesthetic Theory (1955)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mackworth, N.H., Morandi, A.J.: The gaze selects information details within picutres. Percept. Psychophys. 2, 547–552 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Antes, J.R.: The time course of picture viewing. J. Exp. Psychol. 103, 62–70 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Molnar, F.: About the role of visual exploration in aesthetics. In: Advances in Intrinsic Motivation and Aesthetics, pp. 385–413 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yarbus, A.L.: Eye Movements and Vision (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaufman, L., Richards, W.: Spontaneous fixation tendencies for visual forms. Percept. Psychophys. 5, 85–88 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mould, D., Mandryk, R.L., Li, H.: Emotional response and visual attention to non-photorealistic images. Comput. Graph. 36, 658–672 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Park, H., Lee, S., Lee, M., Chang, M.S., Kwak, H.W.: Using eye movement data to infer human behavioral intentions. Comput. Human Behav. 63, 796–804 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Locher, P.J.: The contribution of eye-movement research to an understanding of the nature of pictorial balance perception: a review of the literature, (1996)
  32. 32.
    Khalighy, S., Green, G., Scheepers, C., Whittet, C.: Quantifying the qualities of aesthetics in product design using eye-tracking technology. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 49, 31–43 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hochberg, J., McAlister, E.: A quantitative approach, to figural “goodness”. J. Exp. Psychol. 46, 361–364 (1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Birkin, G.: Aesthetic complexity : practice and perception in art & design, (2010)
  35. 35.
    Berlyne, D.E.: Curiosity and learning. Motiv. Emot. 2, 97–175 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Martindale, C., Moore, K., Borkum, J.: Aesthetic preference : anomalous findings for berlyne’s psychobiological theory. Am. J. Psychol. 103, 53–80 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roberts, M.N.: Complexity and Aesthetic Preference for Diverse Visual Stimuli (2007)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Birkhoff, G.D.: Aesthetic Measure (1933)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rosenfeld, A.: Progress in picture processing: 1969–71. ACM Comput. Surv. 5, 81–108 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mühlenbeck, C., Liebal, K., Pritsch, C., Jacobsen, T.: Differences in the visual perception of symmetric patterns in Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus abelii) and two human cultural groups: a comparative eye-tracking study. Front. Psychol. 7, 1–14 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Leuthold, S., Schmutz, P., Bargas-Avila, J.A., Tuch, A.N., Opwis, K.: Vertical versus dynamic menus on the world wide web: eye tracking study measuring the influence of menu design and task complexity on user performance and subjective preference. Comput. Human Behav. 27, 459–472 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Goldberg, J.H.: Measuring software screen complexity: relating eye tracking, emotional valence, and subjective ratings. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 30, 518–532 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wang, Q., Yang, S., Liu, M., Cao, Z., Ma, Q.: An eye-tracking study of website complexity from cognitive load perspective. Decis. Support Syst. 62, 1–10 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Henderson, J.M., Weeks, P.A., Andrew, H.: The effects of semantic consistency on eye movements during complex scene viewing. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 25, 210–228 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nodine, C.F., Mcginnis, J.J.: Artistic style, compositional design, and visual scanning. Vis. Arts Res. 9, 1–9 (1983)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Locher, P., Nodine, C.: The perceptual value of symmetry. Comput. Math. with Appl. 17, 475–484 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nodine, C.F., Locher, P.J., Krupinski, E.A.: The role of formal art training on perception and aesthetic judgment of art compositions. Leonardo 26, 219 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nodine, C.F.: Compositional design as a perceptual determinant of aesthetic judgment. Rev. Res. Vis. Arts Educ. 15, 43–54 (1982)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of DesignIndian Institute of Technology (IIT) GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations