Abstract
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.
Highlights
Previous research on affective and aesthetic responses to environments and visual stimuli has had an important role in advancing our understanding of human interactions with the natural environment (Kaplan et al, 1972; Ulrich, 1983; Staats et al, 2010; Kardan et al, 2015a)
5 of 10 low-level features and 7 of 26 high-level features remained in the model predicting aesthetic preference and 8 of 10 low-level features and 10 of 26 high-level features remained in the model when predicting naturalness
High-level features explained more of the variance in naturalness than the lowlevel features in this analysis, which may not be too surprising considering that the high-level semantics are composed of the low-level visual features
Summary
Previous research on affective and aesthetic responses to environments and visual stimuli has had an important role in advancing our understanding of human interactions with the natural environment (Kaplan et al, 1972; Ulrich, 1983; Staats et al, 2010; Kardan et al, 2015a). Extending those advancements adds to the understanding of beneficial effects natural environments have on. ART hypothesizes that directed attention is required for executive functioning and self-control, interactions with urban environments may worsen cognitive performance by taxing directed attention (Kaplan and Berman, 2010)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
