In the past Galina V. Paramei has collaborated on articles with David L. Bimler. One of their most recent publications is Art expertise in construing meaning of representational and abstract artworks. Which was published in journal Acta Psychologica.

More information about Galina V. Paramei research including statistics on their citations can be found on their Copernicus Academic profile page.

Galina V. Paramei's Articles: (2)

Art expertise in construing meaning of representational and abstract artworks

AbstractAesthetic appraisal of artwork can present the observer with visual problems to solve in the process of grasping its meaning and ‘visual rightness’ (i.e. “good” structure; Locher, 2003), with an elaboration on perceptual, semantic and affective dimensions (e.g. Marković, 2011). Thus observer's expertise is a factor in aesthetic appraisal. To examine the influence of art training on the aesthetic response, and to clarify the nature of the Representational/Abstract distinction, 30 Experts and 33 Non-experts (Art and Psychology students, respectively) were asked to rate 24 paintings on six affective and affective-evaluative semantic differential scales. Stimuli were images of paintings from the period 1900–1935, 12 broadly Representational and 12 broadly Abstract. Relative to Non-experts, Experts rated Abstract artworks as more Interesting, Beautiful, Informative and Sophisticated, distinguishing them less markedly from Representational artworks. Aggregate Expert and Non-expert ratings, processed by factor analysis, resulted in a two-factor solution. The first factor, contrasting Abstract and Representational artworks, appeared more salient for Non-experts. The second factor, Cool–Warm, separating vibrantly-colored paintings from those with a blue-dominated/dull palette, was more salient for Experts. While Non-experts exaggerated differences between Abstract and Representational paintings, Experts appraised these two types of art similarly, attending more to artwork collative properties. We conclude that appreciation of art by Experts involves ‘cognitive mastery’ (Leder, Belke, Oeberst, & Augustin, 2004), i.e. more complex, cues-based visual schemata which equip them with more sophisticated strategies for analysing collative properties and semantics of an artwork while parsing ‘visual rightness’ to unfold its visual meaning.

Research reportContour-integration deficits on the intact side of the visual field in hemianopia patients

AbstractObjectiveVisual impairments in hemianopia are thought to be exclusively caused by the reduced visual field size. However, the primary lesion may affect the contralateral hemisphere through damage of interhemispheric projections. The question therefore arises if the presumed “intact” hemifield is perceptually impaired.MethodsThree hemianopia patients and three matched controls carried out a Yes/No figure detection task with their intact side of the visual field. The figure (square) contours were composed of non-contiguous Gabor patches embedded in a random patch array of different background densities (low, Δ = 2; high, Δ = 1). Response accuracy and reaction times were recorded.ResultsA temporal–parietal patient revealed figure detection impairments, with accuracy rate, 77% (Δ = 2) and 53% (Δ = 1), below compared control values. An occipital patient was comparable to his match: 99% (Δ = 2); 84% (Δ = 1). Both patients exhibited frequent false alarms to random patterns and required longer presentation times to perform the task. In the third patient, with optic tract lesion, figure detection was nearly normal at low density (92%, Δ = 2) but impaired at noisy background (62%, Δ = 1).ConclusionThe “intact” visual field in hemianopes is impaired in detection of incomplete figures embedded in a noisy background. This deficit may be caused by damage to higher visual centers and/or loss of interhemispheric interactions.

Join Copernicus Academic and get access to over 12 million papers authored by 7+ million academics.
Join for free!

Contact us