Western and Chinese artists have different traditions in representing the world in their paintings. While Western artists start since the Renaissance to represent the world with a central perspective and focus on salient objects in a scene, Chinese artists concentrate on context information in their paintings, mainly before the mid-19th century. We investigated whether the different typical representations influence the aesthetic preference for traditional Chinese and Western paintings in the different cultural groups. Traditional Chinese and Western paintings were presented randomly for an aesthetic evaluation to Chinese and Western participants. Both Chinese and Western paintings included two categories: landscapes and people in different scenes. Results showed a significant interaction between the source of the painting and the cultural group. For Chinese and Western paintings, a reversed pattern of aesthetic preference was observed: while Chinese participants gave higher aesthetic scores to traditional Chinese paintings than to Western paintings, Western participants tended to give higher aesthetic scores to traditional Western paintings than to Chinese paintings. We interpret this observation as indicator that personal identity is supported and enriched within cultural belongingness. Another important finding was that landscapes were more preferable than people in a scene across different cultural groups indicating a universal principle of preferences for landscapes. Thus, our results suggest that, on the one hand, the way that artists represent the world in their paintings influences the way that culturally embedded viewers perceive and appreciate paintings, but on the other hand, independent of the cultural background, anthropological universals are disclosed by the preference of landscapes.
Synchronizing neural processes, mental activities, and social interactions is considered to be fundamental for the creation of temporal order on the personal and interpersonal level. Several different types of synchronization are distinguished, and for each of them examples are given: self-organized synchronizations on the neural level giving rise to pre-semantically defined time windows of some tens of milliseconds and of approximately 3 s; time windows that are created by synchronizing different neural representations, as for instance in aesthetic appreciations or moral judgments; and synchronization of biological rhythms with geophysical cycles, like the circadian clock with the 24-hr rhythm of day and night. For the latter type of synchronization, an experiment is described that shows the importance of social interactions for sharing or avoiding common time. In a group study with four subjects being completely isolated together for 3 weeks from the external world, social interactions resulted both in intra- and interindividual circadian synchronization and desynchronization. A unique phenomenon in circadian regulation is described, the "beat phenomenon," which has been made visible by the interaction of two circadian rhythms with different frequencies in one body. The separation of the two physiological rhythms was the consequence of social interactions, that is, by the desire of a subject to share and to escape common time during different phases of the long-term experiment. The theoretical arguments on synchronization are summarized with the general statement: "Nothing in cognitive science makes sense except in the light of time windows." The hypothesis is forwarded that time windows that express discrete timing mechanisms in behavioral control and on the level of conscious experiences are the necessary bases to create cognitive order, and it is suggested that time windows are implemented by neural oscillations in different frequency domains.
It has been proposed that temporal perception is implemented in a "time window" of approximately 3 s which we experience as "present". Using mismatch negativity (MMN), we tested the hypothesis whether a time window of 3 s is selective for pre-attentively detecting the violation of regularity in a stimulus sequence by employing different interstimulus intervals. Our results showed that in frontal midline areas, the amplitudes of MMN were significantly larger for the shorter interstimulus intervals up to 3 s than for the longer ones. In lateralized frontal areas, male subjects seemed to have a stronger effect in the temporal modulation of the MMN, which might deserve further investigation. We conclude that a time window of 3 s is selective for neuronal mechanisms to process deviant stimuli and that information processing is temporally segmented, creating a "subjective present" in discrete sequential steps.
It has been shown recently that a temporal window of approximately 3 s has a modulatory effect on mismatch negativity (MMN). This special temporal window has been interpreted as representing the "subjective present," and reflecting a temporal segmentation in behavioral and cognitive functions. A more detailed look into the temporal structure of the MMN appeared to be reasonable as group data might shadow the underlying mechanisms because of too-high response variance. In this study, we tested one subject on 11 successive days at the same circadian phase using a passive auditory oddball paradigm with interstimulus intervals (ISIs) ranging from 1 s to 6 s. We observed a U-shape function of MMN showing the largest amplitudes to the oddball stimuli with an ISI of 2 s and 3 s being flanked by smaller response amplitudes for shorter and longer ISIs. This result pattern can be explained with an oscillatory neural mechanism underlying the temporal modulation of MMN. Besides confirming and substantiating temporal segmentation in sensory processing, the present study also demonstrates that a single case study can be a useful and complementary tool in cognitive research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.