Image Feature Types and Their Predictions of Aesthetic Preference and Naturalness

Previous research has investigated ways to quantify visual information of a scene in terms of a visual processing hierarchy, i.e., making sense of visual environment by segmentation and integration of elementary sensory input. Guided by this research, studies have developed categories for low-level visual features (e.g., edges, colors), high-level visual features (scene-level entities that convey semantic information such as objects), and how models of those features predict aesthetic preference and naturalness. For example, in Kardan et al. (2015a), 52 participants provided aesthetic preference and naturalness ratings, which are used in the current study, for 307 images of mixed natural and urban content. Kardan et al. (2015a) then developed a model using low-level features to predict aesthetic preference and naturalness and could do so with high accuracy. What has yet to be explored is the ability of higher-level visual features (e.g., horizon line position relative to viewer, geometry of building distribution relative to visual access) to predict aesthetic preference and naturalness of scenes, and whether higher-level features mediate some of the association between the low-level features and aesthetic preference or naturalness. In this study we investigated these relationships and found that low- and high- level features explain 68.4% of the variance in aesthetic preference ratings and 88.7% of the variance in naturalness ratings. Additionally, several high-level features mediated the relationship between the low-level visual features and aaesthetic preference. In a multiple mediation analysis, the high-level feature mediators accounted for over 50% of the variance in predicting aesthetic preference. These results show that high-level visual features play a prominent role predicting aesthetic preference, but do not completely eliminate the predictive power of the low-level visual features. These strong predictors provide powerful insights for future research relating to landscape and urban design with the aim of maximizing subjective well-being, which could lead to improved health outcomes on a larger scale.

[1]  T. Purcell,et al.  Why do Preferences Differ between Scene Types? , 2001 .

[2]  I. Biederman.  Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[3]  T. Paus,et al.  Neighborhood greenspace and health in a large urban center , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[4]  Grigori Yourganov,et al.  Observers' cognitive states modulate how visual inputs relate to gaze control. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  R. Ulrich.  View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. , 1984, Science.

[6]  L. Cosmides,et al.  The Adapted mind : evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture , 1992 .

[7]  Ke-Tsung Han.  An Exploration of Relationships Among the Responses to Natural Scenes , 2010 .

[8]  Ali Askarinejad,et al.  Designer's approach for scene selection in tests of preference and restoration along a continuum of natural to manmade environments , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[9]  H. Frumkin,et al.  Nature and health. , 2014, Annual review of public health.

[10]  A. Hayes.  Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach , 2013 .

[11]  S. Koole,et al.  Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related? , 2003 .

[12]  R. Millward,et al.  The Experience of Landscape , 1988 .

[13]  Dirk B. Walther,et al.  Natural Scene Categories Revealed in Distributed Patterns of Activity in the Human Brain , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[14]  R. Simons,et al.  Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments , 1991 .

[15]  David L Ronis,et al.  An Environmental Intervention to Restore Attention in Women With Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer , 2003, Cancer nursing.

[16]  J. Jonides,et al.  The Cognitive Benefits of Interacting With Nature , 2008, Psychological science.

[17]  Marc G. Berman,et al.  Can the High-Level Semantics of a Scene be Preserved in the Low-Level Visual Features of that Scene? A Study of Disorder and Naturalness , 2016, CogSci.

[18]  M. Berman,et al.  Directed Attention as a Common Resource for Executive Functioning and Self-Regulation , 2010, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[19]  H. Staats,et al.  Preference for Restorative Situations: Interactive Effects of Attentional State, Activity-in-Environment, and Social Context , 2010 .

[20]  H. Staats,et al.  The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences , 2006 .

[21]  安藤 広志,et al.  20世紀の名著名論：David Marr:Vision:a Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information , 2005 .

[22]  F. Reitsma,et al.  Residential exposure to visible blue space (but not green space) associated with lower psychological distress in a capital city. , 2016, Health & place.

[23]  R. Kaplan,et al.  Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material , 1972 .

[24]  G. Orians,et al.  Evolved responses to landscapes. , 1992 .

[25]  R. Ulrich.  Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment , 1983 .

[26]  R. Berto.  Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity , 2005 .

[27]  Michael W Mehaffy,et al.  Biophilic Design: The Theory, Science, and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life , 2012 .

[28]  Michael C. Hout,et al.  Is the preference of natural versus man-made scenes driven by bottom–up processing of the visual features of nature? , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[29]  D. Mackinnon,et al.  Equivalence of the Mediation, Confounding and Suppression Effect , 2000, Prevention Science.

[30]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences , 1979 .

[31]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Building the gist of a scene: the role of global image features in recognition. , 2006, Progress in brain research.

[32]  M. Bar,et al.  Humans Prefer Curved Visual Objects , 2006, Psychological science.

[33]  Stephen Kaplan,et al.  The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework , 1995 .

[34]  X. Basagaña,et al.  Green spaces and cognitive development in primary schoolchildren , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  F. Mayer,et al.  Why Is Nature Beneficial? , 2009 .

[36]  R. Mitchell,et al.  Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: an observational population study , 2008, The Lancet.

[37]  John F. Canny,et al.  A Computational Approach to Edge Detection , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[38]  Grigori Yourganov,et al.  The Perception of Naturalness Correlates with Low-Level Visual Features of Environmental Scenes , 2014, PloS one.

[39]  Colin G. Ellard,et al.  Cognitive and affective responses to natural scenes: Effects of low level visual properties on preference, cognitive load and eye-movements , 2015 .

[40]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.