Seedlabs
Source research

Does descriptive text change how people look at art? A novel analysis of eye-movements using data-driven Units of Interest

Alan Davies, Manuele Reani, Markel Vigo, Simon Harper, Martin Grimes, Clare Gannaway et al. · 2017 · 7 citationsRead the paper

Does reading a description of an artwork affect how a person subsequently views it? In a controlled study, we show that in most cases, textual description does not influence how people subsequently view paintings, contrary to participants' self-report that they believed it did. To examine whether the description affected transition behaviour, we devised a novel analysis method that systematically determines Units of Interest (UOIs), and calculates transitions between these, to quantify the effect of an external factor (a descriptive text) on the viewing pattern of a naturalistic stimulus (a painting). UOIs are defined using a grid-based system, where the cell-size is determined by a clustering algorithm (DBSCAN). The Hellinger distance is computed for the distance between two Markov chains using a permutation test, constructed from the transition matrices (visual shifts between UOIs) of the two groups for each painting. Results show that the description does not affect the way in which people transition between UOIs for all but one of the paintings -- an abstract work -- suggesting that description may play more of a role in determining transition behaviour when a lack of semantic cues means it is unclear how the painting should be interpreted. The contribution is twofold: to the domain of art/curation, we provide evidence that descriptive texts do not effect how people view paintings, with the possible exception of some abstract paintings; to the domain of eye-movement research, we provide a method with the potential to answer questions across multiple research areas, where the goal is to determine whether a particular factor or condition consistently affects viewing behaviour of naturalistic stimuli.

What the full text shows

Shown in the lab
  • Textual descriptions generally do not influence how people view paintings or the transitions between areas of interest. (Across 7 of 8 paintings tested)
  • Textual descriptions may influence viewing behavior for abstract art lacking distinctive semantic cues. — p = .08 (Hellinger distance Hd = 0.859) (Specifically for the painting 'Release')
  • Participants' self-reported belief that descriptions changed their viewing behavior contradicts actual gaze data. — 68% of participants believed text made a difference (Description group)
  • No significant difference in fixation counts or durations between groups. (No-description (mean 893 fixations, 239ms duration) vs. description (mean 815 fixations, 227ms duration))
Setup
42 participants (24 male, 18 female) viewing 8 digital paintings (3 landscapes, 2 portraits, 3 abstract) for 10 seconds each.
How
A between-subjects experiment compared gaze patterns of two groups (with and without expert descriptions) using a Tobii X2-60 eye-tracker. The researchers developed a data-driven method using DBSCAN clustering to define uniform 'Units of Interest' (UOIs) and compared transition matrices via Markov chains and Hellinger distance.
Limitations
Participants could not view text and painting simultaneously. · Short viewing duration (10s) may favor bottom-up salient features over top-down influence. · Digital viewing may not generalize to physical gallery settings. · Functional nature of the texts used may differ from other curatorial narratives.

Summarized by Gemma 4 from the open-access full text · 8 Oct 2026. Read it