Literature DB >> 7845772

Facial aesthetics: babies prefer attractiveness to symmetry.

C A Samuels1, G Butterworth, T Roberts, L Graupner, G Hole.   

Abstract

The visual preferences of human infants for faces that varied in their attractiveness and in their symmetry about the midline were explored. The aim was to establish whether infants' visual preference for attractive faces may be mediated by the vertical symmetry of the face. Chimeric faces, made from photographs of attractive and unattractive female faces, were produced by computer graphics. Babies looked longer at normal and at chimeric attractive faces than at normal and at chimeric unattractive faces. There were no developmental differences between the younger and older infants: all preferred to look at the attractive faces. Infants as young as 4 months showed similarity with adults in the 'aesthetic perception' of attractiveness and this preference was not based on the vertical symmetry of the face.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7845772     DOI: 10.1068/p230823

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perception        ISSN: 0301-0066            Impact factor:   1.490


  7 in total

1.  Why are average faces attractive? The effect of view and averageness on the attractiveness of female faces.

Authors:  Tim Valentine; Stephen Darling; Mary Donnelly
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-06

2.  Infants attend to second-order relational properties of faces.

Authors:  L A Thompson; V Madrid; S Westbrook; V Johnston
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2001-12

3.  The Shaping of the Face Space in Early Infancy: Becoming a Native Face Processor.

Authors:  Alan Slater; Paul C Quinn; David J Kelly; Kang Lee; Christopher A Longmore; Paula R McDonald; Olivier Pascalis
Journal:  Child Dev Perspect       Date:  2010-12-01

4.  Crossing the 'uncanny valley': adaptation to cartoon faces can influence perception of human faces.

Authors:  Haiwen Chen; Richard Russell; Ken Nakayama; Margaret Livingstone
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 1.490

5.  Nasolabial symmetry and esthetics in cleft lip and palate: analysis of 3D facial images.

Authors:  Dries J Desmedt; Thomas J Maal; Mette A Kuijpers; Ewald M Bronkhorst; Anne Marie Kuijpers-Jagtman; Piotr S Fudalej
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 6.  Does Amount of Information Support Aesthetic Values?

Authors:  Norberto M Grzywacz; Hassan Aleem
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 4.677

7.  Looking time predicts choice but not aesthetic value.

Authors:  Eve A Isham; Joy J Geng
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-16       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.