Why did Rubens add a parrot to Titian’s “Fall of Man”? An eye tracking investigation reveals attentional focus while viewing Italian Renaissance paintings
Why did Rubens add a parrot to Titian’s “Fall of Man”? An eye tracking investigation reveals attentional focus while viewing Italian Renaissance paintings
复制标题
为什么鲁本斯要在提香的《人类的堕落》中添加一只鹦鹉？
DOI：
10.1167/jov.22.14.3162
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Martinez-Conde, Susana
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Alexander, Robert;Venkatakrishnan, Ashwin;Chanovas, Jordi;Ferguson, Sophie;Macknik, Stephen;Martinez-Conde, Susana
我们进行了一项心理物理学和眼动追踪研究，旨在量化自由观看鲁本斯版本的提香的“人类的堕落”以及观看其他类似画作时的凝视动态。鲁本斯复制的提香的杰作在许多方面与原作非常相似，在某些方面几乎完全相同。通过比较两幅画在电脑屏幕上呈现时的凝视行为，我们评估了鲁本斯对提香构图的改变对观众体验的影响。研究人员使用EyeLink 1000记录了33名参与者在观看每幅图像45秒时的双眼注视。我们分析了多个注视参数，包括注视持续时间，扫视和微扫视产生，受试者之间的注视一致性等，以及每幅画作的自然图像统计。我们发现，参与者在鲁本斯版本的画作中注视夏娃的脸的时间比提香的原作更长。此外，与鲁本斯的绘画相比，提香的绘画的凝视位置更加分散，这表明每幅画的观众兴趣的不同分配。我们的综合结果表明，上述凝视行为的差异可以归因于两幅画之间的组成的关键变化。值得注意的是，鲁本斯改变了所描绘人物的身体排列和凝视方向，为观众提供了强大的联合注意力线索，使他们的中心视觉集中在夏娃的脸上。因此，共同的注意力可能是一个关键因素，在观众的经验，“人类的堕落”所想象的鲁本斯，但不是提香。
We conducted a psychophysical and eye-tracking study aimed at quantifying gaze dynamics during the free viewing of Rubens’ version of Titian’s “Fall of Man,” as well as during the viewing of other similar paintings. Rubens’ copy of Titian’s masterpiece is very similar to the original in many ways, and virtually identical in some regards. By comparing gaze behavior during viewing of the two paintings, presented on a computer screen, we assessed the effects of Rubens’ changes to Titian’s composition on the viewer’s experience. An EyeLink 1000 was used to record gaze binocularly from 33 participants as they viewed each of the images for 45 seconds. We analyzed multiple gaze parameters, including fixation duration, saccade and microsaccade production, fixation consistency across subjects, and others, as well as the natural image statistics of each painting. We found that participants gazed for longer durations at Eve’s face in the Rubens’ version of the painting than in Titian’s original. In addition, gaze positions were more dispersed for the Titian painting than for the Rubens painting, indicating different allocations of viewer interest for each painting. Our combined results suggest that the above differences in gaze behavior can be attributed to critical variations in composition between the two paintings. Notably, Rubens changed the depicted characters’ body arrangement and gaze direction, providing powerful joint attentional cues for viewers to focus their central vision on Eve’s face. Thus, joint attention may be a key element in the viewer’s experience of “The Fall of Man” as imagined by Rubens—though not by Titian.