Preference at First Sight: Effects of Shape and Font Qualities on Evaluation of Object-Word Pairs

Olivia S. Cheung; Oliver Heyn; Tobiasz Trawiński

doi:10.3390/vision6020022

Preference at First Sight: Effects of Shape and Font Qualities on Evaluation of Object-Word Pairs

Cheung, Olivia S.;Heyn, Oliver;Trawiński, Tobiasz 2022-04-12 00:00:00 vis ion Article Article Article P Pref reference erence at at F First irst Sight Sight:: Eff Effect ects s of of S Shap hape e a and nd Fo Font nt Qua Qualit lities ies on on Preference at First Sight: Effects of Shape and Font Qualities on Evaluation Evaluation of of Objec Object t- -Wor Word d Pair Pairs s Evaluation of Object-Word Pairs Oli Olivia via S S. . Che Che Olivia un ung *, Olive g *, Olive S. Cheung r Heyn r Heyn * ,a aOliver nd nd Tobia Tobia Heyn sz sz Trawiń Trawiń and Tobiasz ski ski Trawinski ´ Depa Depar rtmen tment t of P of Psy syc cho hollogy ogy, New , New York Un York Uniive ver rsi sity Abu ty Abu Dh Dha abi bi, , Abu Abu Dha Dhab bii 1291 12918 88, Un 8, Uniited ted A Ar ra ab b Em Emiirat rates; es; Department of Psychology, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi 129188, United Arab Emirates; oliv olive er r.hey .heyn@nyu.e n@nyu.edu (O. du (O.H. H.); ); t tr rawi awint@h nt@hope. ope.a ac. c.uk uk (T (T.T.) .T.) oliver.heyn@nyu.edu (O.H.); trawint@hope.ac.uk (T.T.) * * Cor Corr resp espond ondence ence: : o oliv liviia.cheung a.cheung@n @nyu yu.ed .edu u * Correspondence: olivia.cheung@nyu.edu Abstract: Subjective preferences for visual qualities of shapes and fonts have been separately re- Abstract: Subjective preferences for visual qualities of shapes and fonts have been separately re- Abstract: Subjective preferences for visual qualities of shapes and fonts have been separately reported. port ported. ed. Su Such ch prefe preferen rences ces a are re o oft ften en similar similarly ly attrib attribu utted ed to to fa fac cttors ors such such a as s a ae esthet sthetic ic impre impressions, ssions, at- at- Such preferences are often similarly attributed to factors such as aesthetic impressions, attributed ttributed ributed meaning meaning f from t rom the he vis visual ual proper properties, ties, or or proces processin sing g fl fluency. uency. Because Because shapes shapes a an nd fo d fon ntts w s were ere meaning from the visual properties, or processing ﬂuency. Because shapes and fonts were rarely rarely studied together, we investigated whether these qualities had a similar impact on preference rarely studied together, we investigated whether these qualities had a similar impact on preference studied together, we investigated whether these qualities had a similar impact on preference judgment judg judgment ment of of o ob bje ject ct- -wo word rd pair pairs s.. Ea Each ch pair pair consi consist sted ed of of a an n abstra abstract ct object object wi with th ei eitthe her r pref preferr erred ed o or r of object-word pairs. Each pair consisted of an abstract object with either preferred or disliked shape dis dislik liked ed s sha hape pe qualities qualities a an nd d a a pseudow pseudoword ord with with ei eitther her prefe prefer rred red o or r di disli slike ked d fon fontt qu qua ali litties. ies. We We found found qualities and a pseudoword with either preferred or disliked font qualities. We found that only shape that only shape qualities, but not font qualities, influenced preference ratings of the object-word that only shape qualities, but not font qualities, influenced preference ratings of the object-word qualities, but not font qualities, inﬂuenced preference ratings of the object-word pairs, with higher pai pairs rs,, with with hi higher gher pre prefere ferences nces for for pairs pairs w with ith prefe preferr rred ed tth ha an n dis dislik liked ed shapes. shapes. Mo Moreo reover, ver, ey eye e mov move- e- preferences for pairs with preferred than disliked shapes. Moreover, eye movement results indicated ment ment re result sults s in indic dica atted ed tth ha at t w whi hile le pa part rticip icipa an ntts s fixa fixatted ed the the w word ord b befo efore re tthe he o ob bje jec ctt, , their their pr prolon olonged ged that while participants ﬁxated the word before the object, their prolonged ﬁxation on the object when fixation on the object when first attending to it might have contributed to the preference ratings. fixation on the object when first attending to it might have contributed to the preference ratings. ﬁrst attending to it might have contributed to the preference ratings. Nonetheless, other measures, Nonet Nonethel hele ess, ss, o otther her me mea asures, sures, iincludin ncluding g re respon sponse se ttimes, imes, ttotal otal fix fixation ation numb numbers ers, , a and nd ttotal otal d dw well ell ttime, ime, including response times, total ﬁxation numbers, and total dwell time, showed different patterns for sh show owed d ed differ iffere ent nt p pa atter ttern ns s for s for sha hape pe and and fon fontt qualities, qualities, revea revealliing ng tha thatt parti participa cipant nts s a attended ttended more to more to shape and font qualities, revealing that participants attended more to objects with preferred than objects with preferred than disliked shapes, and to words with disliked than preferred fonts. Taken objects with preferred than disliked shapes, and to words with disliked than preferred fonts. Taken disliked shapes, and to words with disliked than preferred fonts. Taken together, these results suggest ttogether, ogether, tthes hese e res results ults su sugg gges est t tha thatt sh sha ape pe a and nd fon font t qualities qualities ha have ve d differ iffere ent ntiia all in influe fluences nces o on n prefe prefer- r- that shape and font qualities have differential inﬂuences on preferences and processing of objects ences ences a an nd pr d process ocessin ing g of of object objects a s and wo nd word rds. s. and words. Keywords: preference; category; eye movement; shape; font Keywords: preference; category; eye movement; shape; font Keywords: preference; category; eye movement; shape; font Cit Cita ati tio on: n: Cheun Cheung, g, O. O.S.; S.; Heyn, Heyn, O.; O.; Citation: Cheung, O.S.; Heyn, O.; Tr Trawiński awiński,, T. T. Preferen Preference ce at at First First Trawinski, ´ T. Preference at First Sight: Sig Sight: ht: Effects Effects of of Shape Shape and Fon and Font t Effects of Shape and Font Qualities 1 1. . Introdu Introduct ction ion 1. Introduction Qual Qualitie ities s on on Evaluation Evaluation of of on Evaluation of Object-Word Pairs. Human Humans s a are re hig high hly ly ef efficien ficient t in in rec recog ognizin nizing g many many c commo ommon n ca categories, tegories, iincludi ncluding ng o ob- b- Humans are highly efﬁcient in recognizing many common categories, including objects Obj Object ect--Word Pai Word Pairs. rs. Vision 2022, 6, 22. https://doi.org/ jects jects a and nd w words, ords, rega regard rdless of less of a a wide wide ra range nge of of va varia riatio tion ns s in in vis visual qua ual qualiti lities, s es, suc uch h a as s styl styles es and words, regardless of a wide range of variations in visual qualities, such as styles and Vision Vision 2022 2022,, 6 6,, x. x. 10.3390/vision6020022 a and nd de designs. signs. Alth Although ough s suc uch h visual visual q qualit ualities ies ma may y not not a aff ffect ect rec recogn ogniti ition on of of a an n obje object ct or or designs. Although such visual qualities may not affect recognition of an object or word (e.g., http https: s:// //doi. doi.org/ org/10. 10.3390/x 3390/xxxxx xxxx Received: 27 January 2022 wo word rd ( (e.g. e.g., , a an office chair n office chair an and d a a d design esigner er chair chair a are re both chairs, both chairs, a and nd AA a and nd AA rep repre resent sent the the an ofﬁce chair and a designer chair are both chairs, and and represent the same letter), Rec Receiv eived: ed: 27 27 January January 2022 2022 Accepted: 7 April 2022 same same letter) letter), , these these these seemingly seemingly seemingly low-level low low- -level level visual vi visual sual prproper proper operties t ties ies ara e are re rapidly r ra apidly pidly extracted extr extra acted cted to shape to to shape shape our preference Acce Accepted: pted: 7 7 April April 2022 2022 Published: 12 April 2022 our preference towards the item. Preference judgments are often made quickly and with- our preference towar tow ds ard the s the item. item. Prefer Pref ence erence judg judgments men arts e often are ofte made n made quickly quickl and y without and witr h- easoning [1,2]. Publis Published: hed: 12 12 April April 2022 2022 out out rea reasoni soning ng [1 [1,2 ,2] ]. . Suc Such h in initial itial eva evaluati luation ons s (e (e.g., .g., llikea ikeability bility, , pre prefe ference rence) ) may may de det termine ermine Such initial evaluations (e.g., likeability, preference) may determine our actions (e.g., to Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Publisher’s Publisher’s N Not ote: e: MDPI MDPI st stays ays neu- neu- our our a actio ctions ns (e (e appr .g., .g., oach to to a approa pproa or avoid), ch ch or or a a and vo void), id), ar e a and nd made a are re for mad mad almost e e for for a almost everything lmost eve everyt ryt that hi hing ng we t that hat encounter we we en- en- , including with regard to jurisdictional claims in tral tral with with regar regard d published to to jur juris ismaps diction diction and al al institutional afﬁl- coun counter, ter, iinclud nclud objects ing ing with ob objects jects either with with streither ong either positive stro strong ng or p pnegative os osiitive tive or or associations negat negative ive a a(e.g., sso ssoc ciatio iatio a ﬂower ns ns ( (e.g. ,e.g. [3,, 4 , ]) a a or relatively claims claims in in publis published hed iations. maps maps and and ins institu- titu- neutral associations (e.g., a teapot, [5]). flower, flower, [3 [3,4 ,4] ]) ) or re or relatively neutra latively neutral a l asso ssociati ciations ( ons (e.g. e.g., , a a t tea eapot, pot, [5 [5] ]). ). tio tional nal aff affiliati iliation ons. s. Although preferences are subjective, previous research has shown that preference Altho Although ugh pre prefe ference rences s a are re subj subjective ective, , pre previ vious ous re resea search rch has has s shown hown that that pre prefe feren rence ce judgments for visual qualities of objects and words are highly consistent among observers judg judgment ments s for for visual visual q quali ualiti ties es of of obj obje ec cts ts a and nd w words ords a are re highly highly c con ons siste istent nt a am mon ong g ob observe servers rs despite some individual differences ([2,6]). For both categories, preferences for curvy con- de despite spite some some indiv individua idual l diff differe erences nces ( ([2 [2,6] ,6]). ). For For both both ca categories, tegories, pre prefe ference rences s for for cur curvy vy con- con- Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. tour or roundness have been reported. For either familiar objects (e.g., sofa) or unfamiliar Copyr Copyright: ight: © © 2022 2022 by by the the autho authors. rs. tour tour or or rou roundnes ndness s have have bee been n rep reported. orted. For For either either fa famil miliia ar r obj objects ects (e (e.g., .g., so sofa fa) o ) or r unfa unfamil miliar iar Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. objects (e.g., abstract shapes or patterns), those with curvy shapes are consistently preferred Sub Submitted mitted for for pos possi sible ble ope open n acce access ss obj object ects s (e (e.g., .g., a abstra bstract ct shape shapes s or or pa pattern tterns), s), th thos ose e w with ith c curvy urvy s shape hapes s a are re con consis siste tently ntly pre pre- - This article is an open access article public publicatio ation n under under the terms the terms and con- and con- compared with those with angular shapes (e.g., [7–9]). Likewise, rounder fonts are also fe ferre rred d compare compared d with with thos those e with angular with angular shapes ( shapes (e.g. e.g., , [ [7 7– –9 9] ]) ). . Likewise, r Likewise, roun ounde der f r fon onts a ts are re distributed under the terms and ditions ditions of of the the Creativ Creative e Commons Commons At- At- consistently preferred over angular fonts (e.g., [10]). Remarkably, the preference for curvy also consistently preferred over angular fonts (e.g., [10]). Remarkably, the preference for also consistently preferred over angular fonts (e.g., [10]). Remarkably, the preference for conditions of the Creative Commons tributio tribution n (CC (CC BY BY) lic ) licens ense e (https (https::///c /cre- re- rather than angular items does not appear to change when observers only see the images curvy curvy ra rather ther t than han a angu ngular lar iitems tems d does oes no not t a appea ppear r to to c ch ha ange nge w when hen observer observers s o only nly see see th the e Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// ative ativeco commons mmons..org/ org/lice licens nses es/by/ /by/4. 4.0/). 0/). brieﬂy (e.g., 84–300 ms, [2]) or until a response (e.g., [11]), and can be found across various images images brief briefly ly (e (e.g., .g., 8 84 4– –3 300 00 ms, ms, [2 [2] ]) ) or or unti until l a a response response (e (e.g., .g., [11] [11]), ), a and nd ca can n be be found found a across cross creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ tasks (e.g., making a binary like/dislike judgment, e.g., [7,11]; select a preferred item from 4.0/). Vision Vision 20 202 22 2,, 6 6, , x x.. https: https://d //doi.org/ oi.org/10. 10.3 339 390 0/xx /xxx xxx xx www www.mdpi .mdpi.com .com//jjour ourn nal/ al/v viisi sion on Vision 2022, 6, 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision6020022 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/vision Vision Vision 2022 2022,, 6 6, x FO , x FOR P R PE EER ER R RE EVIE VIEW W 2 of 2 of 12 12 Vision 2022, 6, 22 2 of 12 various tasks (e.g., making a binary like/dislike judgment, e.g., [7,11]; select a preferred various tasks (e.g., making a binary like/dislike judgment, e.g., [7,11]; select a preferred item from a pair, or select a score on a preference rating scale, [11]). Although similar item from a pair, or select a score on a preference rating scale, [11]). Although similar preferences for specific kinds of visual qualities, particularly curvy contour or roundness, preferences for specific kinds of visual qualities, particularly curvy contour or roundness, a pair, or select a score on a preference rating scale, [11]). Although similar preferences have been observed for various categories, it remains unclear whether such visual quali- have been observed for various categories, it remains unclear whether such visual quali- for speciﬁc kinds of visual qualities, particularly curvy contour or roundness, have been ties share similar processing mechanisms or have similar functions for the respective cat- ties share similar processing mechanisms or have similar functions for the respective cat- observed for various categories, it remains unclear whether such visual qualities share egories. egories. similar processing mechanisms or have similar functions for the respective categories. It is possible that similar mechanisms may underline the preferences for curvy shapes It is possible that similar mechanisms may underline the preferences for curvy shapes It is possible that similar mechanisms may underline the preferences for curvy shapes and fonts. Preference is suggested to be related to factors such as an aesthetic preference and fonts. Preference is suggested to be related to factors such as an aesthetic preference and fonts. Preference is suggested to be related to factors such as an aesthetic preference for for curvy shapes as they are visually pleasant [8,12,13] or a sense of potential threat im- for curvy shapes as they are visually pleasant [8,12,13] or a sense of potential threat im- curvy shapes as they are visually pleasant [8,12,13] or a sense of potential threat implied plied by angular shapes [14,15]. Although shapes and fonts may be regarded as low-level plied by angular shapes [14,15]. Although shapes and fonts may be regarded as low-level by angular shapes [14,15]. Although shapes and fonts may be regarded as low-level v visual isual qu qualit aliti ies es o of f ob objec jects ts a an nd d words words, , s sh hape apes s and and fon font ts s ap appea pear r to to c ca arry m rry mean eanin ing g ov over-an er-and d- - visual qualities of objects and words, shapes and fonts appear to carry meaning over- above the actual semantic meaning of the objects or words. For instance, simple curvy and above the actual semantic meaning of the objects or words. For instance, simple curvy and and-above the actual semantic meaning of the objects or words. For instance, simple angular shapes are associated with different kinds of meaning. Specifically, curvy shapes angular shapes are associated with different kinds of meaning. Specifically, curvy shapes curvy and angular shapes are associated with different kinds of meaning. Speciﬁcally, are associated with words that are related to safety (e.g., comfort, home) or positivity (e.g., are associated with words that are related to safety (e.g., comfort, home) or positivity (e.g., curvy shapes are associated with words that are related to safety (e.g., comfort, home) or laughter, success) and female names, whereas angular shapes are associated with words laughter, success) and female names, whereas angular shapes are associated with words positivity (e.g., laughter, success) and female names, whereas angular shapes are associated that are related to danger (e.g., bomb, torture) or negativity (e.g., rejected, evil) and male that are related to danger (e.g., bomb, torture) or negativity (e.g., rejected, evil) and male with words that are related to danger (e.g., bomb, torture) or negativity (e.g., rejected, names [9]. Likewise, fonts appear to generate their own associations of meaning inde- names [9]. Likewise, fonts appear to generate their own associations of meaning inde- evil) and male names [9]. Likewise, fonts appear to generate their own associations of pendent of the word they were used to write [10]. For instance, italicized fonts are gener- pendent of the word they were used to write [10]. For instance, italicized fonts are gener- meaning independent of the word they were used to write [10]. For instance, italicized fonts ally perceived to be more active but less potent than regular Roman fonts [16], and are generally ally perce per iveceived d to be to m beor mor e act e iactive ve butbut less less popotent tent ththan an regu regular lar Rom Roman an fon fonts ts [[116 6], ], and Palatino Italic was associated with a connotation of “fast” whereas Cooper Black was Palatino Italic was associated with a connotation of “fast” whereas Cooper Black was and was associated with a connotation of “fast” whereas associated with being “slow” [17]. Moreover, font qualities influence categorization judg- associated with being “slow” [17]. Moreover, font qualities influence categorization judg- was associated with being “slow” [17]. Moreover, font qualities inﬂuence categorization ments of category membership (e.g., whether “robin” or “penguin” are “birds”, [18]) and ments of category membership (e.g., whether “robin” or “penguin” are “birds”, [18]) and judgments of category membership (e.g., whether “robin” or “penguin” are “birds”, [18]) perceived psychological distance (e.g., a disfluent font renders the item more abstract and and per perceived ceived psy psychological chological di distance stance (e.g., (e.g., a a di disﬂuent sfluent font font render renders s the the item item mor more e abstract abstract and farther away, [19]). There are even reports of cross-modal correspondences between visual farther away, [19]). There are even reports of cross-modal correspondences between visual and farther away, [19]). There are even reports of cross-modal correspondences between qualities and tastes, in which round shapes and fonts are associated with sweetness and qualities and tastes, in which round shapes and fonts are associated with sweetness and visual qualities and tastes, in which round shapes and fonts are associated with sweetness angular shapes and fonts are associated with bitterness [10,20,21]. and angular angular shap shapes es and font and fonts s a ar re e associated associated with with bitterness bitterness [[10 10, ,20 20,,2 21 1] ].. Preference is also thought to be related to perceptual fluency [22], as revealed by fast Prefer Pref ence erence is also is a thought lso thought to to be related be rela to ted per to ceptual percepﬂuency tual fluency [22], [as 22] r, as reveal evealed by ed by fast fast response respon times. se times. Indeed, Indeewhen d, whe comparing n comparinthe g the prprocessi ocessing ng ofof curvy curvy and and angular angular shapes shapes that response times. Indeed, when comparing the processing of curvy and angular shapes that that are ar are e com compara comparable parab ble le w wi with ith th ob obj objective jec ect ti iv ve e com comp complexity plexi lexity, ty, c ,ccurvy u urvy rvy sh shape shapes apes wer s were wer e p e pr pr roce ocessed ocessed ssed f fa afaster s ster ter th tha than an n ang angu u- - angular lar shape shapes s aacr cross ossmultip multiple le ttasks, asks, incl including uding ca categorization, tegorization, same same-dif -differe ferent nt judg judgment, ment, rota- lar shapes across multiple tasks, including categorization, same-different judgment, rota- rotation, tion, and and symmetry symmetry de detection tection [8 [8 ,2 ,23 3]]. . Sim Similarly ilarly, a , a fafamiliar miliar and and clea clearly rly rea rda eadable ble font font results tion, and symmetry detection [8,23]. Similarly, a familiar and clearly readable font results results in faster and better identiﬁcation, though not detection, of words [22]. The ﬂuency in faster and better identification, though not detection, of words [22]. The fluency and in faster and better identification, though not detection, of words [22]. The fluency and and faster processing speed for curvy over angular shapes and fonts might be related to faster processing speed for curvy over angular shapes and fonts might be related to faster processing speed for curvy over angular shapes and fonts might be related to learned statistical regularities that are utilized for categorization in real-world experience. learned statistical regularities that are utilized for categorization in real-world experience. learned statistical regularities that are utilized for categorization in real-world experience. For instance, animals are recognized faster than man-made objects, perhaps partially due For instance, animals are recognized faster than man-made objects, perhaps partially due For instance, animals are recognized faster than man-made objects, perhaps partially due to the mid-level visual differences among the two categories: animals tend to have curvy or to the mid-level visual differences among the two categories: animals tend to have curvy to the mid-level visual differences among the two categories: animals tend to have curvy round shapes, whereas man-made objects are often boxy or elongated ([24,25]; see also [26]). or round shapes, whereas man-made objects are often boxy or elongated ([24,25]; see also or round shapes, whereas man-made objects are often boxy or elongated ([24,25]; see also Nonetheless, as comparable response times between curvy and angular objects were also [26]). Nonetheless, as comparable response times between curvy and angular objects were [26]). Nonetheless, as comparable response times between curvy and angular objects were sometimes observed for preference judgment, it has been suggested that the preference for also sometimes observed for preference judgment, it has been suggested that the prefer- also sometimes observed for preference judgment, it has been suggested that the prefer- curvy over angular shapes might also arise beyond perceptual ﬂuency [7]. ence for ence for curv curvy y over over a ang ngu ular lar sh shape apes m s mi ight ght a al ls so o ar arise beyond percept ise beyond perceptual f ual fl lue uency [7 ncy [7]. ]. As the qualities of shapes and fonts show similar characteristics with regard to aesthetic As the qualities of shapes and fonts show similar characteristics with regard to aes- As the qualities of shapes and fonts show similar characteristics with regard to aes- impressions, semantic associations, and perceptual ﬂuency, the present study examined thetic impressions, semantic associations, and perceptual fluency, the present study ex- thetic impressions, semantic associations, and perceptual fluency, the present study ex- how these qualities may contribute to preferences for object-word pairs. This question is amined how these qualities may contribute to preferences for object-word pairs. This amined how these qualities may contribute to preferences for object-word pairs. This theoretically important because although preference judgments can be made for both shape question is theoretically important because although preference judgments can be made question is theoretically important because although preference judgments can be made and font qualities of objects and words, it remains unclear whether the same factors underlie for both shape and font qualities of objects and words, it remains unclear whether the for both shape and font qualities of objects and words, it remains unclear whether the the inﬂuences of these visual qualities on the processing of objects and words. New insights same factors underlie the influences of these visual qualities on the processing of objects same factors underlie the influences of these visual qualities on the processing of objects on the roles of preferred or disliked shape and font qualities on the evaluation process can and words. New insights on the roles of preferred or disliked shape and font qualities on and words. New insights on the roles of preferred or disliked shape and font qualities on be revealed and compared when the two categories are examined directly. Apart from the evaluation process can be revealed and compared when the two categories are exam- the evaluation process can be revealed and compared when the two categories are exam- preference ratings, additional measures such as response times and eye movements during ined directly. Apart from preference ratings, additional measures such as response times ined directly. Apart from preference ratings, additional measures such as response times the evaluation of the object-word pairs allow for the understanding of the impact of shape and eye movements during the evaluation of the object-word pairs allow for the under- and eye movements during the evaluation of the object-word pairs allow for the under- and font qualities on processing time of and attention allocation towards objects and words. st standin anding g of of t the he im impact pact o of f shap shape e and and fo font nt qu qualitie alities s o on n p processi rocessing ng ti tim me e o of f a and nd a atten ttention tion Note that preference ratings and response times could reveal similar or different patterns of allocation towards objects and words. Note that preference ratings and response times allocation towards objects and words. Note that preference ratings and response times results, which would suggest whether or how subjective preference and processing ﬂuency could reveal similar or different patterns of results, which would suggest whether or how could reveal similar or different patterns of results, which would suggest whether or how for visual qualities of objects and words might be related, and how attention might be subjective preference and processing fluency for visual qualities of objects and words subjective preference and processing fluency for visual qualities of objects and words allocated to the object or the word depending on the visual qualities. Moreover, although objects and words are often studied separately in a laboratory setting, it is quite common Vision 2022, 6, 22 3 of 12 that object-word pairs are shown simultaneously as a unit in everyday life, such as in the case of logos. Therefore, an investigation on shape and font qualities of object-word pairs may also have real-world implications on preferences for visual design of new brand logos [27]. In this study, we manipulated the preferred vs. disliked qualities for both shapes and fonts for object-word pairs. To minimize the potential semantic associations of familiar objects and words on the perception of shapes and fonts (e.g., [17]), only abstract objects and pseudowords were used in this study. If observers evaluate information from both objects and words equally, and the effects of preferred vs. disliked visual qualities from both categories are addictive, the highest preference ratings would be expected for object- word pairs with preferred shapes and fonts, whereas the lowest preference ratings would be expected for the pairs with disliked shapes and fonts. Another possibility is that the congruency between the shape and font qualities of the object-word pairs is also evaluated (e.g., see [28]), thus higher preference ratings would be expected for object-word pairs with preferred qualities for both components and for pairs with disliked qualities for both components, compared with pairs with preferred qualities for one component but disliked qualities for the other component. Alternatively, preferences and response times for object-word pairs might instead be driven by the visual qualities of only one but not both components, presumably the ﬁrst component that observers attend to. To examine how attention might be allocated to either the object or the word with different visual qualities, eye movements were recorded during the preference judgment. We focused on the measures of ﬁrst ﬁxations and total ﬁxations towards the object-word pairs. Previous studies showed that observers’ ﬁrst ﬁxations and total ﬁxation durations for pictorial or textual components depend on the relevance to their goals [29]: observers generally attended to the text over the image quicker and for a longer time on printed or webpage advertisement when considering making a purchase [30,31], but attended to the image quicker and for a longer time, compared with the text, when judging how much they liked the ad or how effective the ad was [32]. Based on these ﬁndings, we expected that when making the preference judgment of object-word pairs, the shape qualities might have a larger impact than font qualities, since the object might be ﬁxated ﬁrst and for a longer time, compared with the word. Moreover, differences in eye movements might also be expected between preferred and disliked qualities of shapes and fonts, since observers might be more likely to attend to preferred shapes and avoid attending to disliked shapes [8,33], but might be less likely to attend to preferred than disliked fonts [34–36]. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Participants Twenty-four undergraduate students (8 males and 16 females, M age = 19.42, SD = 1.39) from New York University Abu Dhabi (NYUAD) participated for course credits or subsis- tence allowance. All participants reported normal or corrected-to-normal vision. The study was approved by the NYUAD Institutional Review Board. All participants gave informed written consent prior to the experiment. 2.2. Apparatus The stimuli were presented on a BenQ XL2411Z monitor using a Windows desktop computer and participants responded by pressing one of the dedicated keys on a standard keyboard. Eye movements were measured using an EyeLink 1000 Plus eye tracker (SR Research Ltd., Ottawa, ON, Canada) operating at 1000 Hz. Head movement was stabilized using a chin and head rest. 2.3. Stimuli and Procedure 2.3.1. Pilot Study We conducted a pilot study to select the shapes and fonts for the main study. In the pilot study, a separate group of 18 participants (10 males and 8 females, M age = 22.67, Vision 2022, 6, 22 4 of 12 SD = 6.32) from the NYUAD community were presented with 400 grayscale images and were asked to provide preference ratings. Of those images, there were 200 different abstract shapes and the same letter-string ‘ABCDE’ writing in 200 different fonts. All of the abstract shapes were selected from the image set in [7], with 100 curvy shapes and 100 angular shapes. The 200 fonts were selected from a wide range of designs. Each shape or letter string was presented on a gray background of 256 pixels by 256 pixels in size. The presentation order of shape and font trials was blocked and counterbalanced across participants. On each trial, participants were ﬁrst shown a ﬁxation for 600 ms and then an image for 400 ms and were asked the extent they liked each shape or font on a 5-point scale, with 1 being the lowest (‘not at all’) and 5 being the highest (‘very much’). Participants were asked to respond as soon as possible, or within 10 s after stimulus onset (the average response time was 1302 ms, SD = 958 ms). For the analysis of the pilot results, the trials with very brief response times were excluded (<300 ms, 194 out of 7200 trials = 2.69%). According to the ratings collected in the pilot study, we selected a total of 96 shapes and 96 fonts. For both categories, we selected 48 images with high ratings and 48 images with low ratings. Note that for the shapes, we selected from only the curvy shapes for the preferred condition and only the angular shapes for the disliked condition. Two-sample t-tests conﬁrmed that the preferred shapes (M = 3.02, SD = 0.30) were rated signiﬁcantly higher than the disliked shapes (M = 2.37, SD = 0.27), t = 11.23, p < 0.0001, d = 2.29 and the preferred fonts (M = 3.24, SD = 0.21) were rated signiﬁcantly higher than the disliked fonts (M = 2.03, SD = 0.11), t = 35.91, p < 0.0001, d = 7.33. There was also no signiﬁcant difference in response times either between preferred (M = 1229 ms, SD = 101 ms) and disliked (M = 1232 ms, SD = 142 ms) shapes, t = 0.10, p = 0.92, d = 0.02, or between preferred (M = 1317 ms, SD = 208 ms) and disliked (M = 1346 ms, SD = 211 ms) fonts, t = 0.68, p = 0.50, d = 0.14. 2.3.2. Main Study In the main study, each stimulus was composed of one of the 96 shapes (48 preferred and 48 disliked shapes) and a pseudoword in the English language in one of the 96 fonts (48 preferred and 48 disliked fonts), presented side-by-side, with either the shape or the word presented immediately left or right of the center of the screen. Figure 1 illustrates the sample stimuli. There were a total of 48 four-letter nonsense words (e.g., ‘dipo’, ‘lomu’), each word presented once in a preferred font and once in a disliked font for each participant. We made two sets of pairings between each pseudoword and a preferred/disliked font to be presented to different participants (e.g., ‘dipo’ was paired with two different preferred fonts and two different disliked fonts), with the two sets counterbalanced across participants Vision 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 12 to minimize any possible effects that the preference judgment was made based on the pseudowords but not the fonts. Figure 1. Sample object–word stimuli in the four main experimental conditions: preferred shapes Figure 1. Sample object–word stimuli in the four main experimental conditions: preferred shapes with preferred and disliked fonts (top-left and bottom-left) and disliked shapes with preferred and with preferred and disliked fonts (top-left and bottom-left) and disliked shapes with preferred and disliked fonts (top-right and bottom right). disliked fonts (top-right and bottom right). Each shape or font was only shown once in the experiment to minimize prior expo- sure that could affect preference judgment [37]. The shapes and fonts were paired ran- domly on each trial. Specifically, half of the preferred shapes were paired with preferred fonts, whereas the rest of the preferred shapes were paired with disliked fonts. Likewise, half of the disliked shapes were paired with preferred fonts, whereas the rest of the dis- liked shapes were paired with disliked fonts. With each of the 4 shape–font conditions, the positions of the objects and words were counterbalanced: half of the trials showed the objects on the left and the words on the right, and the rest of the trials showed the words on the left and the objects on the right. There were a total of 192 trials, with 24 trials in each of the Shape quality (preferred vs. disliked), Font quality (preferred vs. disliked) and Position (shape-on-the-left vs. shape-on-the-right) conditions. Each object–word pair was presented on a gray background of 512 pixels in width and 256 pixels in height, subtend- ing a visual angle of 11.35° in width and 5.68° in height. The analysis of eye movement data towards the objects and words excluded the gap between the two stimuli (80 pixels). Participants were asked to treat each object–word pair as a logo and to indicate their preference for each logo on a 5-point scale (1 indicates ‘not at all’, whereas 5 indicates ‘very much’). On each trial, a fixation was presented at the center of the screen for 600 ms, followed by an object–word pair for 2 s. Participants were told to look at each display until the stimulus disappeared but were allowed to respond as soon as they saw the display, or up to 10 s after the stimulus onset. 3. Results For the analyses of preference ratings and response times, trials with extremely short (<200 ms) or extremely long (>4000 ms) response times were excluded (1.7% of the total number of trials). For the eye movement analysis, fixations that coincided with stimulus onset or the response, or extreme outliers (<60 ms or >1200 ms fixation duration) were excluded (4.6% of the total number of trials), resulting in a final data set consisting of 36,046 (out of 37,784) fixations. Figure 2 illustrates the preference ratings and response time results. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the results regarding the first fixations and the total fixations. Vision 2022, 6, 22 5 of 12 Each shape or font was only shown once in the experiment to minimize prior exposure that could affect preference judgment [37]. The shapes and fonts were paired randomly on each trial. Speciﬁcally, half of the preferred shapes were paired with preferred fonts, whereas the rest of the preferred shapes were paired with disliked fonts. Likewise, half of the disliked shapes were paired with preferred fonts, whereas the rest of the disliked shapes were paired with disliked fonts. With each of the 4 shape–font conditions, the positions of the objects and words were counterbalanced: half of the trials showed the objects on the left and the words on the right, and the rest of the trials showed the words on the left and the objects on the right. There were a total of 192 trials, with 24 trials in each of the Shape quality (preferred vs. disliked), Font quality (preferred vs. disliked) and Position (shape-on-the-left vs. shape-on-the-right) conditions. Each object–word pair was presented on a gray background of 512 pixels in width and 256 pixels in height, subtending a visual angle of 11.35 in width and 5.68 in height. The analysis of eye movement data towards the objects and words excluded the gap between the two stimuli (80 pixels). Participants were asked to treat each object–word pair as a logo and to indicate their preference for each logo on a 5-point scale (1 indicates ‘not at all’, whereas 5 indicates ‘very much’). On each trial, a ﬁxation was presented at the center of the screen for 600 ms, followed by an object–word pair for 2 s. Participants were told to look at each display until the stimulus disappeared but were allowed to respond as soon as they saw the display, or up to 10 s after the stimulus onset. 3. Results For the analyses of preference ratings and response times, trials with extremely short (<200 ms) or extremely long (>4000 ms) response times were excluded (1.7% of the total number of trials). For the eye movement analysis, ﬁxations that coincided with stimulus onset or the response, or extreme outliers (<60 ms or >1200 ms ﬁxation duration) were excluded (4.6% of the total number of trials), resulting in a ﬁnal data set consisting of 36,046 (out of 37,784) ﬁxations. Figure 2 illustrates the preference ratings and response Vision 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 12 time results. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the results regarding the ﬁrst ﬁxations and the total ﬁxations. Figure Figure 2. 2. Pr Prefe eferr ence ence ratings ( ratings (left left)) and response tim and response times es (RT, (RT, right right )) as a function of Shape quality and as a function of Shape quality and Font Font qual quality ity. . Because Because the main effec the main effects t and s and interactions interactions inv involving olving the the fact factor Position or Position (i (i.e., whether .e., whether the the object or word was shown on the left vs. right) was not significant, the plotted results were object or word was shown on the left vs. right) was not signiﬁcant, the plotted results were collapsed collapsed for that factor. Error bars represent standard errors. for that factor. Error bars represent standard errors. Figure 3. First fixation index (top panel) and first fixation duration (bottom panel) as a function of Shape quality and Font quality. Error bars represent standard errors. Vision 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 12 Figure 2. Preference ratings (left) and response times (RT, right) as a function of Shape quality and Font quality. Because the main effects and interactions involving the factor Position (i.e., whether Vision 2022, 6, 22 6 of 12 the object or word was shown on the left vs. right) was not significant, the plotted results were collapsed for that factor. Error bars represent standard errors. Vision 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 12 Figure 3. First ﬁxation index (top panel) and ﬁrst ﬁxation duration (bottom panel) as a function of Figure 3. First fixation index (top panel) and first fixation duration (bottom panel) as a function of Shape quality and Font quality. Error bars represent standard errors. Shape quality and Font quality. Error bars represent standard errors. Figure 4. Total ﬁxation count (top panel) and total dwell time (bottom panel) as a function of Shape Figure 4. Total fixation count (top panel) and total dwell time (bottom panel) as a function of Shape quality and Font quality. Error bars represent standard errors. quality and Font quality. Error bars represent standard errors. 3.1. Preference Ratings An ANOVA was conducted on preference ratings with three within-subject factors: Shape quality (preferred vs. disliked), Font quality (preferred vs. disliked), and Position (left vs. right of center of screen). There was a significant main effect of Shape quality, F1,23 = 39.68, p < 0.001, ηp = 0.633, with higher ratings for preferred than disliked shapes. Both the main effects of Font quality (F1,23 = 0.68, p = 0.417, ηp = 0.029) and Position (F1,23 = 0.47, p = 0.502, ηp = 0.02) were not significant. There were also no significant two-way (Shape quality × Font quality: F1,23 = 2.05, p = 0.165, ηp = 0.082; Shape quality × Position: F1,23 = 2 2 0.46, p = 0.506, ηp = 0.019; Font quality × Position: F1,23 = 0.09, p = 0.765, ηp = 0.004) or three-way interactions (F1,23 = 0.19, p = 0.666, ηp = 0.008). These results suggest that regard- less of the positions of the objects or words, participants relied on the shape quality of the object instead of the font quality of the word for preference judgment. 3.2. Response Times (RT) An ANOVA was conducted on RT with three within-subject factors: Shape quality (preferred vs. disliked), Font quality (preferred vs. disliked), and Position (left vs. right of center of screen). There was a main effect of Shape quality, F1,23 = 5.00, p = 0.035, ηp = 0.18, with slower responses for preferred shapes than disliked shapes. There was also a main effect of Font quality, F1,23 = 5.61, p = 0.027, ηp = 0.20), with faster responses for preferred fonts than disliked fonts. The main effect of Position was not significant, F1,23 = 1.80, p = 0.19, ηp = 0.072. There were no significant two-way interactions (Shape quality × Font 2 2 quality: F1,23 = 0.27, p = 0.61, ηp = 0.012; Shape quality × Position: F1,23 = 0.1, p = 0.749, ηp = 0.005; Font quality × Position: F1,23 = 2.24, p = 0.148, ηp = 0.089) or three-way interactions (F1,23 = 3.46, p = 0.076, ηp = 0.13). 3.3. Eye Movements Vision 2022, 6, 22 7 of 12 3.1. Preference Ratings An ANOVA was conducted on preference ratings with three within-subject factors: Shape quality (preferred vs. disliked), Font quality (preferred vs. disliked), and Position (left vs. right of center of screen). There was a signiﬁcant main effect of Shape qual- ity, F = 39.68, p < 0.001, h = 0.633, with higher ratings for preferred than disliked 1,23 p shapes. Both the main effects of Font quality (F = 0.68, p = 0.417, h = 0.029) and 1,23 p Position (F = 0.47, p = 0.502, h = 0.02) were not signiﬁcant. There were also no sig- 1,23 niﬁcant two-way (Shape quality Font quality: F = 2.05, p = 0.165, h = 0.082; Shape 1,23 p quality Position: F = 0.46, p = 0.506, h = 0.019; Font quality Position: F = 0.09, 1,23 1,23 2 2 p = 0.765, h = 0.004) or three-way interactions (F = 0.19, p = 0.666, h = 0.008). p 1,23 p These results suggest that regardless of the positions of the objects or words, partici- pants relied on the shape quality of the object instead of the font quality of the word for preference judgment. 3.2. Response Times (RT) An ANOVA was conducted on RT with three within-subject factors: Shape quality (preferred vs. disliked), Font quality (preferred vs. disliked), and Position (left vs. right of center of screen). There was a main effect of Shape quality, F = 5.00, p = 0.035, h = 0.18, 1,23 p with slower responses for preferred shapes than disliked shapes. There was also a main effect of Font quality, F = 5.61, p = 0.027, h = 0.20), with faster responses for preferred 1,23 p fonts than disliked fonts. The main effect of Position was not signiﬁcant, F = 1.80, p = 0.19, 1,23 h = 0.072. There were no signiﬁcant two-way interactions (Shape quality Font quality: 2 2 F = 0.27, p = 0.61, h = 0.012; Shape quality Position: F = 0.1, p = 0.749, h = 0.005; p p 1,23 1,23 Font quality Position: F = 2.24, p = 0.148, h = 0.089) or three-way interactions 1,23 p (F = 3.46, p = 0.076, h = 0.13). 1,23 3.3. Eye Movements For the eye movement data, we focused on four measures on objects and words separately: ﬁrst ﬁxation index, ﬁrst ﬁxation duration, total ﬁxation count, and total dwell time. First ﬁxation index on either the object or the word indicated the number of ﬁxations it took the participant to ﬁrst ﬁxate each component. First ﬁxation duration indicated the duration of the ﬁrst ﬁxation on each component. Total ﬁxation count on either the object or the word indicated the total numbers of ﬁxations made on each component. Total dwell time indicated the duration of all ﬁxations on each component. A three-way ANOVA was conducted on each of these measures with within-subject factors: Focus (object vs. word), Shape quality (preferred vs. disliked), and Font quality (preferred vs. disliked). The analysis was conducted on data collapsed across the left vs. right positions for the objects and words, because the analysis focus was on the ﬁxations to the categories (object vs. word), and the factor Position was counterbalanced across conditions. 3.3.1. First Fixation Index There was a main effect of Focus, F = 17.62, p < 0.001, h = 0.434, with the ﬁrst 1,23 p ﬁxations made more frequently to the word than the object. The main effect of Shape quality was not signiﬁcant, F = 0.06, p = 0.801, h = 0.003. There was a main effect of Font quality, 1,23 p F = 4.36, p = 0.048, h = 0.159, which was modulated by a signiﬁcant interaction between 1,23 p Focus and Font quality, F = 7.67, p = 0.011, h = 0.25, with the effect of Font quality 1,23 p observed when the Focus was on the object but not the word. Speciﬁcally, although the ﬁrst ﬁxations were more likely made on the word than the object in all conditions (p’s < 0.02, Scheffé’s test), the difference was larger with the presence of disliked than preferred fonts (p < 0.01), suggesting that when the word was shown in disliked rather than preferred fonts, participants took additional ﬁxations on the word prior to initiating a ﬁxation to the object, presumably because disliked fonts required further processing than preferred fonts. There were no other signiﬁcant two-way interactions (Focus Shape quality: F = 2.79, 1,23 Vision 2022, 6, 22 8 of 12 2 2 p = 0.109, h = 0.108; Shape quality Font quality: F = 0.01, p = 0.914, h < 0.001) or p 1,23 p three-way interaction (F = 0.33, p = 0.572, h = 0.014). 1,23 3.3.2. First Fixation Duration There was a main effect of Focus, F = 76.38, p < 0.001, h = 0.769, with longer 1,23 p ﬁrst ﬁxations on objects than words. There were no main effects of either Shape qual- 2 2 ity (F = 0.02, p = 0.88, h = 0.001) or Font quality (F < 0.01, p = 0.99, h < 0.001). 1,23 p 1,23 p There was a signiﬁcant interaction between Focus and Font quality, F = 11.96, p = 0.002, 1,23 h = 0.342: although the ﬁrst ﬁxations were longer for objects than words in all condi- tions (p’s < 0.001, Scheffé’s test), the difference was reduced with the presence of disliked than preferred fonts (p = 0.002), presumably because participants switched attention from the object back to the word faster for disliked fonts, which likely required further pro- cessing, than for preferred fonts (p < 0.001, Scheffé’s test). There were no other signif- icant two-way interactions (Focus Shape quality: F = 0.02, p = 0.897, h < 0.001; 1,23 p Shape quality Font quality: F = 0.53, p = 0.474, h = 0.023) or three-way interaction 1,23 (F = 0.02, p = 0.622, h = 0.008). 1,23 p 3.3.3. Total Fixation Count There were no signiﬁcant main effects of Focus (F = 2.77, p = 0.109, h = 0.108), 1,23 Shape quality (F = 0.89, p = 0.355, h = 0.037), nor Font quality (F = 0.52, p = 0.478, 1,23 p 1,23 h = 0.022) on total ﬁxation count. However, there was an interaction between Focus and Shape quality, F = 20.9, p < 0.001, h = 0.476, and an interaction between Focus and Font 1,23 p quality, F = 26.47, p < 0.001, h = 0.535. Essentially, participants made approximately 1,23 p ﬁve ﬁxations across each object–word pair. Although the ﬁxations were quite evenly distributed across the object and the word, participants ﬁxated more frequently the word with disliked than preferred fonts (p = 0.007, Scheffé’s test), and on the object with preferred than disliked shapes (p = 0.006, Scheffé’s test). The interaction between Shape quality and Font quality (F = 0.55, p = 0.465, h = 0.023) and the three-way interaction (F = 0.21, 1,23 1,23 p = 0.654, h = 0.009) were not signiﬁcant. 3.3.4. Total Dwell Time The results of total dwell time were highly similar to those of total ﬁxation count. There were no signiﬁcant main effects of Focus (F = 0.01, p = 0.939, h < 0.001), Shape quality 1,23 p 2 2 (F = 1.07, p = 0.312, h = 0.044), nor Font quality (F = 0.32, p = 0.574, h = 0.014) p p 1,23 1,23 on total dwell time. However, there was an interaction between Focus and Shape quality, F = 19.69, p < 0.001, h = 0.461, and an interaction between Focus and Font quality, 1,23 p F = 37.95, p < 0.001, h = 0.623. Similar to the total ﬁxation count results, although the 1,23 p total dwell time on the object and the word was comparable, participants looked longer at the word with disliked than preferred fonts (p = 0.001, Scheffé’s test), and at the object with preferred than disliked shapes (p = 0.0005, Scheffé’s test). The interaction between Shape quality and Font quality (F = 2.03, p = 0.168, h = 0.081) and the three-way interaction 1,23 (F = 0.25, p = 0.624, h = 0.011) were not signiﬁcant. 1,23 p 4. Discussion To examine the effects of visual qualities on the evaluation of object-word pairs, we manipulated the qualities of shapes and fonts. We measured subjective preference, response times, and eye movements during the evaluation and observed different patterns of results across the measures. We found that preference ratings for the object-word pairs were primarily determined by the shape qualities of the objects, whereas the font qualities of the words appeared to have negligible effects. Speciﬁcally, higher preference ratings were observed when the objects had preferred than disliked shapes, regardless of whether the words were shown in preferred or disliked fonts. Moreover, the congruency between shape and font qualities did not appear to inﬂuence the preference ratings for the object-word pairs. This result might Vision 2022, 6, 22 9 of 12 be surprising: although both the preferred and disliked qualities of the shapes and fonts had been established in the pilot study, participants only relied on the shape qualities even when both sets of information were available in the main study. Consistent with previous studies, it is possible that during object processing, curvy shapes are generally preferred because of an aesthetic pleasantness [8,12,13] and angular shapes are generally disliked because of an indication of potential threat [14,15]. On the other hand, aesthetic values of font qualities may not be as critical during word processing even though preference judgment can be made for fonts. Nonetheless, both shape and font qualities had an impact on the evaluation process, as the response times for the preference decisions were inﬂuenced by both sets of qualities. More speciﬁcally, preferred vs. disliked shape and font qualities showed different effects, with longer response times found for preferred than disliked shapes and for disliked than preferred fonts. Although no differences in response times were observed for either shapes or fonts during the pilot study, it is important to emphasize that because opposite patterns of response times and total ﬁxations were observed for preferred vs. disliked shape and font qualities, it is unlikely that the same factors affect the processing of objects and words equally. Presumably, preferred shapes are more pleasant to look at compared with disliked shapes [8,12,13,33], while it may take longer to identify the words shown in disliked than preferred fonts (e.g., [10]). Similar differential effects of preferred vs. disliked shape and font qualities were also revealed in two of the eye movement measures, speciﬁcally the total ﬁxation count and total dwell time. Taken together, these results suggest that shape and font qualities do not produce identical effects on either preference ratings or processing time, and the amount of processing time for speciﬁc shape and font qualities is unlikely related to subjective preference for object-word pairs. Although participants evaluated both components of the object-word pairs, as they made comparable numbers of ﬁxations to each component and ﬁxated each component for approximately the same amount of time, subjective preference for object-word pairs may instead depend on certain aspects of the ﬁrst ﬁxations that participants made to either the object or the word. Since preference judgment is often made rapidly [2,7], it is conceivable that the ﬁrst impression for a single component could determine the preference towards the pair. We measured whether participants attended to the object or the word ﬁrst (ﬁrst ﬁxation index) and how long the ﬁrst ﬁxation was (ﬁrst ﬁxation duration). These two measures revealed the opposite results: participants attended to the word before the object, but the ﬁrst ﬁxation on the object was longer than the ﬁrst ﬁxation on the word. Such results were only partially consistent with previous ﬁndings of stronger inﬂuences of the pictorial than textual components during preference judgment, as the pictorial component of a printed advertisement was both ﬁxated quicker and longer than the textual component [32]. Nonetheless, because the preference ratings for object-word pairs were found to depend on only the shape qualities of the object and not the font qualities of the word, our results suggest that the preference judgment was not necessarily based on the component that participants ﬁrst attended to (i.e., the word), but instead the ﬁrst component that they examined for a sufﬁcient amount of time (i.e., the object). Why do words attract attention ﬁrst and why do shape qualities of an object show stronger inﬂuences on preference judgment than font qualities of a word? We suggest that the different processing goals for the two categories, or the differential functionality of the visual qualities of each of the categories, may play an important role. It is possible that attention is ﬁrst attracted to words than objects because it is quicker to process word meaning than shape meaning. Indeed, faster responses were found in a congruence judgment task when observers attended to the word before the object in object-word pairs (e.g., both are squares/circles, or one is a square and the other is a circle) [38]. More importantly, the impact of visual qualities may depend on the processing needs required for extracting meaning from the speciﬁc categories. For object processing, the shape qualities may signify the visual appearance but not necessarily the essence of the object (e.g., different shapes of sofas). In contrast, for word processing, the legibility of the font is critical to Vision 2022, 6, 22 10 of 12 identify the letters and access the word meaning and disliked fonts are often considered less legible than preferred fonts [10]. Therefore, although the qualities of shapes and fonts can both be evaluated and the preferred qualities of shapes and fonts are appreciated, the desirable characteristics of shapes and fonts serve different processing goals for extracting meaning from the categories. As our study aimed to examine the relative importance of shape and font qualities on preference judgment on object-word pairs, we expected that the participants would attend to either or both components in a serial manner. However, it is possible that participants might instead ﬁxate a central point of the display to evaluate the pair as a unit. Because our stimuli were presented at the center of the screen, where participants ﬁxated prior to the stimulus onset, we were not able to distinguish whether any initial ﬁxations located at the center of the display were relevant to the preference judgment. To clarify the eye movement strategies used by observers when viewing the object-word pairs, future studies may consider presenting the displays off center and examining whether participants adopt a holistic or analytical viewing strategy (e.g., [39]). Furthermore, since shapes and fonts alone may convey meaning [9,17], future investigation on shape and font qualities could use familiar objects and meaningful words to examine whether the effect of shape qualities on preference judgment remains robust, or whether higher-level factors such as semantic processing would instead lead to a stronger emphasis on font qualities. While our ﬁndings suggest that shape qualities have a more critical role than font qualities on subjective preference, further studies may examine the real-world implications of shape and font qualities on visual design of familiar compared with novel brand logos. 5. Conclusions Although preferred and disliked shape and font qualities can be consistently identiﬁed among observers, the present study revealed that subjective preference for object-word pairs was determined primarily by shape qualities of the object but not font qualities of the word. By studying the visual qualities of objects and words together, our ﬁndings provide new insights that the desirable shape and font qualities may serve different processing goals for the categories. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, O.S.C. and O.H.; investigation, O.H.; data curation, O.H. and T.T.; formal analysis, O.S.C., O.H. and T.T.; funding acquisition, O.H.; visualization, O.S.C., O.H. and T.T.; writing—original draft, O.S.C.; writing—review and editing, O.S.C., O.H. and T.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was supported by a capstone grant awarded to O.H. by New York University Abu Dhabi. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of New York University Abu Dhabi (protocol #093-2016, approved on 1 November 2016). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: The data and analysis code for this study are available at https://osf.io/56h8s/. Acknowledgments: The authors thank Emma Wei Chen and Julie Xixuan Liu for helpful discussions and assistance in data analysis. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. References 1. Reber, R.; Schwarz, N.; Winkielman, P. Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver ’s Processing Experience? Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2004, 8, 364–382. [CrossRef] 2. Corradi, G.; Belman, M.; Currò, T.; Chuquichambi, E.G.; Rey, C.; Nadal, M. Aesthetic Sensitivity to Curvature in Real Objects and Abstract Designs. Acta Psychol. 2019, 197, 124–130. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Cunningham, W.A.; Raye, C.L.; Johnson, M.K. Implicit and Explicit Evaluation: FMRI Correlates of Valence, Emotional Intensity, and Control in the Processing of Attitudes. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2004, 16, 1717–1729. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Vision 2022, 6, 22 11 of 12 4. Greenwald, A.G.; McGhee, D.E.; Schwartz, J.L.K. Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 1464–1480. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Lebrecht, S.; Bar, M.; Barrett, L.F.; Tarr, M.J. Micro-Valences: Perceiving Affective Valence in Everyday Objects. Front. Psychol. 2012, 3, 107. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 6. Cotter, K.N.; Silvia, P.J.; Bertamini, M.; Palumbo, L.; Vartanian, O. Curve Appeal: Exploring Individual Differences in Preference for Curved Versus Angular Objects. i-Percept 2017, 8, 204166951769302. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 7. Bar, M.; Neta, M. Humans Prefer Curved Visual Objects. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 17, 645–648. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 8. Bertamini, M.; Palumbo, L.; Gheorghes, T.N.; Galatsidas, M. Do Observers like Curvature or Do They Dislike Angularity? Br. J. Psychol. 2016, 107, 154–178. [CrossRef] 9. Palumbo, L.; Ruta, N.; Bertamini, M. Comparing Angular and Curved Shapes in Terms of Implicit Associations and Ap- proach/Avoidance Responses. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0140043. [CrossRef] 10. Velasco, C.; Woods, A.T.; Hyndman, S.; Spence, C. The Taste of Typeface. i-Percept 2015, 6, 204166951559304. [CrossRef] 11. Palumbo, L.; Bertamini, M. The Curvature Effect: A Comparison Between Preference Tasks. Empir. Stud. Arts 2016, 34, 35–52. [CrossRef] 12. Gómez-Puerto, G.; Munar, E.; Nadal, M. Preference for Curvature: A Historical and Conceptual Framework. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2015, 9, 712. [CrossRef] 13. Kastl, A.J.; Child, I.L. Emotional Meaning of Four Typographical Variables. J. Appl. Psychol. 1968, 52, 440–446. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Bar, M.; Neta, M. Visual Elements of Subjective Preference Modulate Amygdala Activation. Neuropsychologia 2007, 45, 2191–2200. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Larson, C.L.; Aronoff, J.; Sarinopoulos, I.C.; Zhu, D.C. Recognizing Threat: A Simple Geometric Shape Activates Neural Circuitry for Threat Detection. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2009, 21, 1523–1535. [CrossRef] 16. Tannenbaum, P.H.; Jacobson, H.K.; Norris, E.L. An Experimental Investigation of Typeface Connotations. Journal. Q. 1964, 41, 65–73. [CrossRef] 17. Lewis, C.; Walker, P. Typographic Inﬂuences on Reading. Br. J. Psychol. 1989, 80, 241–257. [CrossRef] 18. Oppenheimer, D.M.; Frank, M.C. A Rose in Any Other Font Would Not Smell as Sweet: Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Categorization. Cognition 2008, 106, 1178–1194. [CrossRef] 19. Alter, A.L.; Oppenheimer, D.M. Effects of Fluency on Psychological Distance and Mental Construal (or Why New York Is a Large City, but New York Is a Civilized Jungle). Psychol. Sci. 2008, 19, 161–167. [CrossRef] 20. Spence, C.; Deroy, O. On the Shapes of Flavours: A Review of Four Hypotheses. Theor. Hist. Sci. 2014, 10, 207–238. [CrossRef] 21. Velasco, C.; Woods, A.T.; Deroy, O.; Spence, C. Hedonic Mediation of the Crossmodal Correspondence between Taste and Shape. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 41, 151–158. [CrossRef] 22. Reber, R.; Wurtz, P.; Zimmermann, T.D. Exploring “Fringe” Consciousness: The Subjective Experience of Perceptual Fluency and Its Objective Bases. Conscious. Cogn. 2004, 13, 47–60. [CrossRef] 23. Bertamini, M.; Palumbo, L.; Redies, C. An Advantage for Smooth Compared with Angular Contours in the Speed of Processing Shape. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2019, 45, 1304–1318. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 24. Long, B.; Störmer, V.S.; Alvarez, G.A. Mid-Level Perceptual Features Contain Early Cues to Animacy. J. Vis. 2017, 17, 20. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 25. Zachariou, V.; Del Giacco, A.C.; Ungerleider, L.G.; Yue, X. Bottom-up Processing of Curvilinear Visual Features Is Sufﬁcient for Animate/Inanimate Object Categorization. J. Vis. 2018, 18, 1–12. [CrossRef] 26. He, C.; Cheung, O.S. Category Selectivity for Animals and Man-Made Objects: Beyond Low- and Mid-Level Visual Features. J. Vis. 2019, 19, 1–14. [CrossRef] 27. Bresciani, S.; Del Ponte, P. New Brand Logo Design: Customers’ Preference for Brand Name and Icon. J. Brand Manag. 2017, 24, 375–390. [CrossRef] 28. Makin, A.D.J. The Gap Between Aesthetic Science and Aesthetic Experience. J. Conscious. Stud. 2017, 24, 184–213. 29. Yarbus, A.L. Eye Movements and Vision; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1967; ISBN 978-1-4899-5381-0. 30. Rayner, K.; Rotello, C.M.; Stewart, A.J.; Keir, J.; Duffy, S.A. Integrating Text and Pictorial Information: Eye Movements When Looking at Print Advertisements. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2001, 7, 219–226. [CrossRef] 31. Wedel, M.; Pieters, R. Eye Fixations on Advertisements and Memory for Brands: A Model and Findings. Mark. Sci. 2000, 19, 297–312. [CrossRef] 32. Rayner, K.; Miller, B.; Rotello, C.M. Eye Movements When Looking at Print Advertisements: The Goal of the Viewer Matters. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2008, 22, 697–707. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 33. Rinck, M.; Becker, E.S. Spider Fearful Individuals Attend to Threat, Then Quickly Avoid It: Evidence from Eye Movements. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2006, 115, 231–238. [CrossRef] 34. Rayner, K. Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research. Psychol. Bull. 1998, 124, 372–422. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 35. Rayner, K.; Reichle, E.D.; Stroud, M.J.; Williams, C.C.; Pollatsek, A. The Effect of Word Frequency, Word Predictability, and Font Difﬁculty on the Eye Movements of Young and Older Readers. Psychol. Aging 2006, 21, 448–465. [CrossRef] Vision 2022, 6, 22 12 of 12 36. Slattery, T.J.; Rayner, K. The Inﬂuence of Text Legibility on Eye Movements during Reading. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2010, 24, 1129–1148. [CrossRef] 37. Perfect, T.J.; Heatherley, S. Preference for Advertizements, Logos, and Names: Effects of Implicit Memory. Psychol. Rep. 1997, 80, 803–808. [CrossRef] 38. Seymour, P.H.K. Order of Fixation Effects in Classiﬁcation of Word-Shape Pairs. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 1970, 22, 440–449. [CrossRef] 39. Chuk, T.; Crookes, K.; Hayward, W.G.; Chan, A.B.; Hsiao, J.H. Hidden Markov Model Analysis Reveals the Advantage of Analytic Eye Movement Patterns in Face Recognition across Cultures. Cognition 2017, 169, 102–117. [CrossRef] http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Vision Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/preference-at-first-sight-effects-of-shape-and-font-qualities-on-hRqdOIJtGb

Loading next page...

References (40)

Marco Bertamini, L. Palumbo, C. Redies (2019)
An advantage for smooth compared with angular contours in the speed of processing shape.
Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance
Chenxi He, Olivia Cheung (2019)
Category selectivity for animals and man-made objects: Beyond low- and mid-level visual features.
Journal of vision, 19 12
R. Reber, P. Wurtz, T. Zimmermann (2004)
Exploring “fringe” consciousness: The subjective experience of perceptual fluency and its objective bases
Consciousness and Cognition, 13
William Cunningham, C. Raye, Marcia Johnson (2004)
Implicit and Explicit Evaluation: fMRI Correlates of Valence, Emotional Intensity, and Control in the Processing of Attitudes
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16
M. Rinck, E. Becker (2006)
Spider fearful individuals attend to threat, then quickly avoid it: evidence from eye movements.
Journal of abnormal psychology, 115 2
Tim Chuk, Kate Crookes, W. Hayward, Antoni Chan, J. Hsiao (2017)
Hidden Markov model analysis reveals the advantage of analytic eye movement patterns in face recognition across cultures
Cognition, 169
A. Kastl, I. Child (1968)
Emotional meaning of four typographical variables.
The Journal of applied psychology, 52 6
(2001)
Integrating Text and Pictorial Information: Eye Movements When Looking at Print Advertisements
J. Exp. Psychol. Appl., 7
Bria Long, Viola Störmer, G. Alvarez (2017)
Mid-level perceptual features contain early cues to animacy.
Journal of vision, 17 6
C. Lewis, P. Walker (1989)
Typographic influences on reading.
British journal of psychology, 80 ( Pt 2)
L. Palumbo, Nicole Ruta, Marco Bertamini (2015)
Comparing Angular and Curved Shapes in Terms of Implicit Associations and Approach/Avoidance Responses
PLoS ONE, 10
M. Wedel, R. Pieters (2000)
Eye Fixations on Advertisements and Memory for Brands: A Model and Findings
Marketing Science, 19
T. Perfect, S. Heatherley (1997)
Preference for Advertizements, Logos, and Names: Effects of Implicit Memory
Psychological Reports, 80
Marco Bertamini, L. Palumbo, Tamara Gheorghes, Mai Galatsidas (2015)
Do observers like curvature or do they dislike angularity?
British Journal of Psychology, 107
Adam Alter, Daniel Oppenheimer (2008)
Effects of Fluency on Psychological Distance and Mental Construal (or Why New York Is a Large City, but New York Is a Civilized Jungle)
Psychological Science, 19
P. Tannenbaum, Harvey Jacobson, E. Norris (1964)
An Experimental Investigation of Typeface Connotations
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 41
Gerardo Gómez-Puerto, E. Munar, M. Nadal (2016)
Preference for Curvature: A Historical and Conceptual Framework
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9
A.D.J. Makin (2017)
The Gap Between Aesthetic Science and Aesthetic Experience
Sophie Lebrecht, M. Bar, L. Barrett, M. Tarr (2012)
Micro-Valences: Perceiving Affective Valence in Everyday Objects
Frontiers in Psychology, 3
P. Seymour (1970)
Order of Fixation Effects in Classification of Word-Shape Pairs
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 22
M. Bar, M. Neta (2006)
Humans Prefer Curved Visual Objects
Psychological Science, 17
G. Corradi, Manuel Belman, Tommaso Currò, Erick Chuquichambi, Carlos Rey, M. Nadal (2019)
Aesthetic sensitivity to curvature in real objects and abstract designs.
Acta psychologica, 197
R. Reber, N. Schwarz, P. Winkielman (2004)
Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver's Processing Experience?
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8
Sabrina Bresciani, P. Ponte (2017)
New brand logo design: customers’ preference for brand name and icon
Journal of Brand Management, 24
T. Slattery, K. Rayner (2010)
The influence of text legibility on eye movements during reading
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24
K. Rayner (1998)
Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.
Psychological bulletin, 124 3
M. Bar, M. Neta (2007)
Visual elements of subjective preference modulate amygdala activation
Neuropsychologia, 45
Carlos Velasco, A. Woods, Sarah Hyndman, C. Spence (2015)
The Taste of Typeface
i-Perception, 6
Carlos Velasco, A. Woods, Ophelia Deroy, C. Spence (2015)
Hedonic mediation of the crossmodal correspondence between taste and shape
Food Quality and Preference, 41
K. Rayner, Brett Miller, C. Rotello (2008)
Eye Movements When Looking at Print Advertisements: The Goal of the Viewer Matters.
Applied cognitive psychology, 22 5
Daniel Oppenheimer, Michael Frank (2008)
A rose in any other font would not smell as sweet: Effects of perceptual fluency on categorization
Cognition, 106
L. Palumbo, Marco Bertamini (2016)
The Curvature Effect
Empirical Studies of the Arts, 34
C. Spence, Ophelia Deroy (2014)
On the shapes of flavours: A review of four hypotheses
, 10
K. Rayner, Caren Rotello, A. Stewart, J. Keir, S. Duffy (2001)
Integrating text and pictorial information: eye movements when looking at print advertisements.
Journal of experimental psychology. Applied, 7 3
A. Yarbus (1967)
Eye Movements and Vision
Valentinos Zachariou, Amanda Giacco, Leslie Ungerleider, Xiaomin Yue (2018)
Bottom-up processing of curvilinear visual features is sufficient for animate/inanimate object categorization
Journal of Vision, 18
Katherine Cotter, P. Silvia, Marco Bertamini, L. Palumbo, O. Vartanian (2016)
Curve Appeal: Exploring Individual Differences in Preference for Curved Versus Angular Objects
i-Perception, 8
K. Rayner, Erik Reichle, Michael Stroud, Carrick Williams, A. Pollatsek (2006)
The effect of word frequency, word predictability, and font difficulty on the eye movements of young and older readers.
Psychology and aging, 21 3
A. Greenwald, D. McGhee, Jordan Schwartz (1998)
Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 74 6
C. Larson, J. Aronoff, Issidoros Sarinopoulos, David Zhu (2009)
Recognizing Threat: A Simple Geometric Shape Activates Neural Circuitry for Threat Detection
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21

Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright: © 1996-2022 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN: 2411-5150
DOI: 10.3390/vision6020022
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

vis ion Article Article Article P Pref reference erence at at F First irst Sight Sight:: Eff Effect ects s of of S Shap hape e a and nd Fo Font nt Qua Qualit lities ies on on Preference at First Sight: Effects of Shape and Font Qualities on Evaluation Evaluation of of Objec Object t- -Wor Word d Pair Pairs s Evaluation of Object-Word Pairs Oli Olivia via S S. . Che Che Olivia un ung *, Olive g *, Olive S. Cheung r Heyn r Heyn * ,a aOliver nd nd Tobia Tobia Heyn sz sz Trawiń Trawiń and Tobiasz ski ski Trawinski ´ Depa Depar rtmen tment t of P of Psy syc cho hollogy ogy, New , New York Un York Uniive ver rsi sity Abu ty Abu Dh Dha abi bi, , Abu Abu Dha Dhab bii 1291 12918 88, Un 8, Uniited ted A Ar ra ab b Em Emiirat rates; es; Department of Psychology, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi 129188, United Arab Emirates; oliv olive er r.hey .heyn@nyu.e n@nyu.edu (O. du (O.H. H.); ); t tr rawi awint@h nt@hope. ope.a ac. c.uk uk (T (T.T.) .T.) oliver.heyn@nyu.edu (O.H.); trawint@hope.ac.uk (T.T.) * * Cor Corr resp espond ondence ence: : o oliv liviia.cheung a.cheung@n @nyu yu.ed .edu u * Correspondence: olivia.cheung@nyu.edu Abstract: Subjective preferences for visual qualities of shapes and fonts have been separately re- Abstract: Subjective preferences for visual qualities of shapes and fonts have been separately re- Abstract: Subjective preferences for visual qualities of shapes and fonts have been separately reported. port ported. ed. Su Such ch prefe preferen rences ces a are re o oft ften en similar similarly ly attrib attribu utted ed to to fa fac cttors ors such such a as s a ae esthet sthetic ic impre impressions, ssions, at- at- Such preferences are often similarly attributed to factors such as aesthetic impressions, attributed ttributed ributed meaning meaning f from t rom the he vis visual ual proper properties, ties, or or proces processin sing g fl fluency. uency. Because Because shapes shapes a an nd fo d fon ntts w s were ere meaning from the visual properties, or processing ﬂuency. Because shapes and fonts were rarely rarely studied together, we investigated whether these qualities had a similar impact on preference rarely studied together, we investigated whether these qualities had a similar impact on preference studied together, we investigated whether these qualities had a similar impact on preference judgment judg judgment ment of of o ob bje ject ct- -wo word rd pair pairs s.. Ea Each ch pair pair consi consist sted ed of of a an n abstra abstract ct object object wi with th ei eitthe her r pref preferr erred ed o or r of object-word pairs. Each pair consisted of an abstract object with either preferred or disliked shape dis dislik liked ed s sha hape pe qualities qualities a an nd d a a pseudow pseudoword ord with with ei eitther her prefe prefer rred red o or r di disli slike ked d fon fontt qu qua ali litties. ies. We We found found qualities and a pseudoword with either preferred or disliked font qualities. We found that only shape that only shape qualities, but not font qualities, influenced preference ratings of the object-word that only shape qualities, but not font qualities, influenced preference ratings of the object-word qualities, but not font qualities, inﬂuenced preference ratings of the object-word pairs, with higher pai pairs rs,, with with hi higher gher pre prefere ferences nces for for pairs pairs w with ith prefe preferr rred ed tth ha an n dis dislik liked ed shapes. shapes. Mo Moreo reover, ver, ey eye e mov move- e- preferences for pairs with preferred than disliked shapes. Moreover, eye movement results indicated ment ment re result sults s in indic dica atted ed tth ha at t w whi hile le pa part rticip icipa an ntts s fixa fixatted ed the the w word ord b befo efore re tthe he o ob bje jec ctt, , their their pr prolon olonged ged that while participants ﬁxated the word before the object, their prolonged ﬁxation on the object when fixation on the object when first attending to it might have contributed to the preference ratings. fixation on the object when first attending to it might have contributed to the preference ratings. ﬁrst attending to it might have contributed to the preference ratings. Nonetheless, other measures, Nonet Nonethel hele ess, ss, o otther her me mea asures, sures, iincludin ncluding g re respon sponse se ttimes, imes, ttotal otal fix fixation ation numb numbers ers, , a and nd ttotal otal d dw well ell ttime, ime, including response times, total ﬁxation numbers, and total dwell time, showed different patterns for sh show owed d ed differ iffere ent nt p pa atter ttern ns s for s for sha hape pe and and fon fontt qualities, qualities, revea revealliing ng tha thatt parti participa cipant nts s a attended ttended more to more to shape and font qualities, revealing that participants attended more to objects with preferred than objects with preferred than disliked shapes, and to words with disliked than preferred fonts. Taken objects with preferred than disliked shapes, and to words with disliked than preferred fonts. Taken disliked shapes, and to words with disliked than preferred fonts. Taken together, these results suggest ttogether, ogether, tthes hese e res results ults su sugg gges est t tha thatt sh sha ape pe a and nd fon font t qualities qualities ha have ve d differ iffere ent ntiia all in influe fluences nces o on n prefe prefer- r- that shape and font qualities have differential inﬂuences on preferences and processing of objects ences ences a an nd pr d process ocessin ing g of of object objects a s and wo nd word rds. s. and words. Keywords: preference; category; eye movement; shape; font Keywords: preference; category; eye movement; shape; font Keywords: preference; category; eye movement; shape; font Cit Cita ati tio on: n: Cheun Cheung, g, O. O.S.; S.; Heyn, Heyn, O.; O.; Citation: Cheung, O.S.; Heyn, O.; Tr Trawiński awiński,, T. T. Preferen Preference ce at at First First Trawinski, ´ T. Preference at First Sight: Sig Sight: ht: Effects Effects of of Shape Shape and Fon and Font t Effects of Shape and Font Qualities 1 1. . Introdu Introduct ction ion 1. Introduction Qual Qualitie ities s on on Evaluation Evaluation of of on Evaluation of Object-Word Pairs. Human Humans s a are re hig high hly ly ef efficien ficient t in in rec recog ognizin nizing g many many c commo ommon n ca categories, tegories, iincludi ncluding ng o ob- b- Humans are highly efﬁcient in recognizing many common categories, including objects Obj Object ect--Word Pai Word Pairs. rs. Vision 2022, 6, 22. https://doi.org/ jects jects a and nd w words, ords, rega regard rdless of less of a a wide wide ra range nge of of va varia riatio tion ns s in in vis visual qua ual qualiti lities, s es, suc uch h a as s styl styles es and words, regardless of a wide range of variations in visual qualities, such as styles and Vision Vision 2022 2022,, 6 6,, x. x. 10.3390/vision6020022 a and nd de designs. signs. Alth Although ough s suc uch h visual visual q qualit ualities ies ma may y not not a aff ffect ect rec recogn ogniti ition on of of a an n obje object ct or or designs. Although such visual qualities may not affect recognition of an object or word (e.g., http https: s:// //doi. doi.org/ org/10. 10.3390/x 3390/xxxxx xxxx Received: 27 January 2022 wo word rd ( (e.g. e.g., , a an office chair n office chair an and d a a d design esigner er chair chair a are re both chairs, both chairs, a and nd AA a and nd AA rep repre resent sent the the an ofﬁce chair and a designer chair are both chairs, and and represent the same letter), Rec Receiv eived: ed: 27 27 January January 2022 2022 Accepted: 7 April 2022 same same letter) letter), , these these these seemingly seemingly seemingly low-level low low- -level level visual vi visual sual prproper proper operties t ties ies ara e are re rapidly r ra apidly pidly extracted extr extra acted cted to shape to to shape shape our preference Acce Accepted: pted: 7 7 April April 2022 2022 Published: 12 April 2022 our preference towards the item. Preference judgments are often made quickly and with- our preference towar tow ds ard the s the item. item. Prefer Pref ence erence judg judgments men arts e often are ofte made n made quickly quickl and y without and witr h- easoning [1,2]. Publis Published: hed: 12 12 April April 2022 2022 out out rea reasoni soning ng [1 [1,2 ,2] ]. . Suc Such h in initial itial eva evaluati luation ons s (e (e.g., .g., llikea ikeability bility, , pre prefe ference rence) ) may may de det termine ermine Such initial evaluations (e.g., likeability, preference) may determine our actions (e.g., to Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral Publisher’s Publisher’s N Not ote: e: MDPI MDPI st stays ays neu- neu- our our a actio ctions ns (e (e appr .g., .g., oach to to a approa pproa or avoid), ch ch or or a a and vo void), id), ar e a and nd made a are re for mad mad almost e e for for a almost everything lmost eve everyt ryt that hi hing ng we t that hat encounter we we en- en- , including with regard to jurisdictional claims in tral tral with with regar regard d published to to jur juris ismaps diction diction and al al institutional afﬁl- coun counter, ter, iinclud nclud objects ing ing with ob objects jects either with with streither ong either positive stro strong ng or p pnegative os osiitive tive or or associations negat negative ive a a(e.g., sso ssoc ciatio iatio a ﬂower ns ns ( (e.g. ,e.g. [3,, 4 , ]) a a or relatively claims claims in in publis published hed iations. maps maps and and ins institu- titu- neutral associations (e.g., a teapot, [5]). flower, flower, [3 [3,4 ,4] ]) ) or re or relatively neutra latively neutral a l asso ssociati ciations ( ons (e.g. e.g., , a a t tea eapot, pot, [5 [5] ]). ). tio tional nal aff affiliati iliation ons. s. Although preferences are subjective, previous research has shown that preference Altho Although ugh pre prefe ference rences s a are re subj subjective ective, , pre previ vious ous re resea search rch has has s shown hown that that pre prefe feren rence ce judgments for visual qualities of objects and words are highly consistent among observers judg judgment ments s for for visual visual q quali ualiti ties es of of obj obje ec cts ts a and nd w words ords a are re highly highly c con ons siste istent nt a am mon ong g ob observe servers rs despite some individual differences ([2,6]). For both categories, preferences for curvy con- de despite spite some some indiv individua idual l diff differe erences nces ( ([2 [2,6] ,6]). ). For For both both ca categories, tegories, pre prefe ference rences s for for cur curvy vy con- con- Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. tour or roundness have been reported. For either familiar objects (e.g., sofa) or unfamiliar Copyr Copyright: ight: © © 2022 2022 by by the the autho authors. rs. tour tour or or rou roundnes ndness s have have bee been n rep reported. orted. For For either either fa famil miliia ar r obj objects ects (e (e.g., .g., so sofa fa) o ) or r unfa unfamil miliar iar Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. objects (e.g., abstract shapes or patterns), those with curvy shapes are consistently preferred Sub Submitted mitted for for pos possi sible ble ope open n acce access ss obj object ects s (e (e.g., .g., a abstra bstract ct shape shapes s or or pa pattern tterns), s), th thos ose e w with ith c curvy urvy s shape hapes s a are re con consis siste tently ntly pre pre- - This article is an open access article public publicatio ation n under under the terms the terms and con- and con- compared with those with angular shapes (e.g., [7–9]). Likewise, rounder fonts are also fe ferre rred d compare compared d with with thos those e with angular with angular shapes ( shapes (e.g. e.g., , [ [7 7– –9 9] ]) ). . Likewise, r Likewise, roun ounde der f r fon onts a ts are re distributed under the terms and ditions ditions of of the the Creativ Creative e Commons Commons At- At- consistently preferred over angular fonts (e.g., [10]). Remarkably, the preference for curvy also consistently preferred over angular fonts (e.g., [10]). Remarkably, the preference for also consistently preferred over angular fonts (e.g., [10]). Remarkably, the preference for conditions of the Creative Commons tributio tribution n (CC (CC BY BY) lic ) licens ense e (https (https::///c /cre- re- rather than angular items does not appear to change when observers only see the images curvy curvy ra rather ther t than han a angu ngular lar iitems tems d does oes no not t a appea ppear r to to c ch ha ange nge w when hen observer observers s o only nly see see th the e Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// ative ativeco commons mmons..org/ org/lice licens nses es/by/ /by/4. 4.0/). 0/). brieﬂy (e.g., 84–300 ms, [2]) or until a response (e.g., [11]), and can be found across various images images brief briefly ly (e (e.g., .g., 8 84 4– –3 300 00 ms, ms, [2 [2] ]) ) or or unti until l a a response response (e (e.g., .g., [11] [11]), ), a and nd ca can n be be found found a across cross creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ tasks (e.g., making a binary like/dislike judgment, e.g., [7,11]; select a preferred item from 4.0/). Vision Vision 20 202 22 2,, 6 6, , x x.. https: https://d //doi.org/ oi.org/10. 10.3 339 390 0/xx /xxx xxx xx www www.mdpi .mdpi.com .com//jjour ourn nal/ al/v viisi sion on Vision 2022, 6, 22. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision6020022 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/vision Vision Vision 2022 2022,, 6 6, x FO , x FOR P R PE EER ER R RE EVIE VIEW W 2 of 2 of 12 12 Vision 2022, 6, 22 2 of 12 various tasks (e.g., making a binary like/dislike judgment, e.g., [7,11]; select a preferred various tasks (e.g., making a binary like/dislike judgment, e.g., [7,11]; select a preferred item from a pair, or select a score on a preference rating scale, [11]). Although similar item from a pair, or select a score on a preference rating scale, [11]). Although similar preferences for specific kinds of visual qualities, particularly curvy contour or roundness, preferences for specific kinds of visual qualities, particularly curvy contour or roundness, a pair, or select a score on a preference rating scale, [11]). Although similar preferences have been observed for various categories, it remains unclear whether such visual quali- have been observed for various categories, it remains unclear whether such visual quali- for speciﬁc kinds of visual qualities, particularly curvy contour or roundness, have been ties share similar processing mechanisms or have similar functions for the respective cat- ties share similar processing mechanisms or have similar functions for the respective cat- observed for various categories, it remains unclear whether such visual qualities share egories. egories. similar processing mechanisms or have similar functions for the respective categories. It is possible that similar mechanisms may underline the preferences for curvy shapes It is possible that similar mechanisms may underline the preferences for curvy shapes It is possible that similar mechanisms may underline the preferences for curvy shapes and fonts. Preference is suggested to be related to factors such as an aesthetic preference and fonts. Preference is suggested to be related to factors such as an aesthetic preference and fonts. Preference is suggested to be related to factors such as an aesthetic preference for for curvy shapes as they are visually pleasant [8,12,13] or a sense of potential threat im- for curvy shapes as they are visually pleasant [8,12,13] or a sense of potential threat im- curvy shapes as they are visually pleasant [8,12,13] or a sense of potential threat implied plied by angular shapes [14,15]. Although shapes and fonts may be regarded as low-level plied by angular shapes [14,15]. Although shapes and fonts may be regarded as low-level by angular shapes [14,15]. Although shapes and fonts may be regarded as low-level v visual isual qu qualit aliti ies es o of f ob objec jects ts a an nd d words words, , s sh hape apes s and and fon font ts s ap appea pear r to to c ca arry m rry mean eanin ing g ov over-an er-and d- - visual qualities of objects and words, shapes and fonts appear to carry meaning over- above the actual semantic meaning of the objects or words. For instance, simple curvy and above the actual semantic meaning of the objects or words. For instance, simple curvy and and-above the actual semantic meaning of the objects or words. For instance, simple angular shapes are associated with different kinds of meaning. Specifically, curvy shapes angular shapes are associated with different kinds of meaning. Specifically, curvy shapes curvy and angular shapes are associated with different kinds of meaning. Speciﬁcally, are associated with words that are related to safety (e.g., comfort, home) or positivity (e.g., are associated with words that are related to safety (e.g., comfort, home) or positivity (e.g., curvy shapes are associated with words that are related to safety (e.g., comfort, home) or laughter, success) and female names, whereas angular shapes are associated with words laughter, success) and female names, whereas angular shapes are associated with words positivity (e.g., laughter, success) and female names, whereas angular shapes are associated that are related to danger (e.g., bomb, torture) or negativity (e.g., rejected, evil) and male that are related to danger (e.g., bomb, torture) or negativity (e.g., rejected, evil) and male with words that are related to danger (e.g., bomb, torture) or negativity (e.g., rejected, names [9]. Likewise, fonts appear to generate their own associations of meaning inde- names [9]. Likewise, fonts appear to generate their own associations of meaning inde- evil) and male names [9]. Likewise, fonts appear to generate their own associations of pendent of the word they were used to write [10]. For instance, italicized fonts are gener- pendent of the word they were used to write [10]. For instance, italicized fonts are gener- meaning independent of the word they were used to write [10]. For instance, italicized fonts ally perceived to be more active but less potent than regular Roman fonts [16], and are generally ally perce per iveceived d to be to m beor mor e act e iactive ve butbut less less popotent tent ththan an regu regular lar Rom Roman an fon fonts ts [[116 6], ], and Palatino Italic was associated with a connotation of “fast” whereas Cooper Black was Palatino Italic was associated with a connotation of “fast” whereas Cooper Black was and was associated with a connotation of “fast” whereas associated with being “slow” [17]. Moreover, font qualities influence categorization judg- associated with being “slow” [17]. Moreover, font qualities influence categorization judg- was associated with being “slow” [17]. Moreover, font qualities inﬂuence categorization ments of category membership (e.g., whether “robin” or “penguin” are “birds”, [18]) and ments of category membership (e.g., whether “robin” or “penguin” are “birds”, [18]) and judgments of category membership (e.g., whether “robin” or “penguin” are “birds”, [18]) perceived psychological distance (e.g., a disfluent font renders the item more abstract and and per perceived ceived psy psychological chological di distance stance (e.g., (e.g., a a di disﬂuent sfluent font font render renders s the the item item mor more e abstract abstract and farther away, [19]). There are even reports of cross-modal correspondences between visual farther away, [19]). There are even reports of cross-modal correspondences between visual and farther away, [19]). There are even reports of cross-modal correspondences between qualities and tastes, in which round shapes and fonts are associated with sweetness and qualities and tastes, in which round shapes and fonts are associated with sweetness and visual qualities and tastes, in which round shapes and fonts are associated with sweetness angular shapes and fonts are associated with bitterness [10,20,21]. and angular angular shap shapes es and font and fonts s a ar re e associated associated with with bitterness bitterness [[10 10, ,20 20,,2 21 1] ].. Preference is also thought to be related to perceptual fluency [22], as revealed by fast Prefer Pref ence erence is also is a thought lso thought to to be related be rela to ted per to ceptual percepﬂuency tual fluency [22], [as 22] r, as reveal evealed by ed by fast fast response respon times. se times. Indeed, Indeewhen d, whe comparing n comparinthe g the prprocessi ocessing ng ofof curvy curvy and and angular angular shapes shapes that response times. Indeed, when comparing the processing of curvy and angular shapes that that are ar are e com compara comparable parab ble le w wi with ith th ob obj objective jec ect ti iv ve e com comp complexity plexi lexity, ty, c ,ccurvy u urvy rvy sh shape shapes apes wer s were wer e p e pr pr roce ocessed ocessed ssed f fa afaster s ster ter th tha than an n ang angu u- - angular lar shape shapes s aacr cross ossmultip multiple le ttasks, asks, incl including uding ca categorization, tegorization, same same-dif -differe ferent nt judg judgment, ment, rota- lar shapes across multiple tasks, including categorization, same-different judgment, rota- rotation, tion, and and symmetry symmetry de detection tection [8 [8 ,2 ,23 3]]. . Sim Similarly ilarly, a , a fafamiliar miliar and and clea clearly rly rea rda eadable ble font font results tion, and symmetry detection [8,23]. Similarly, a familiar and clearly readable font results results in faster and better identiﬁcation, though not detection, of words [22]. The ﬂuency in faster and better identification, though not detection, of words [22]. The fluency and in faster and better identification, though not detection, of words [22]. The fluency and and faster processing speed for curvy over angular shapes and fonts might be related to faster processing speed for curvy over angular shapes and fonts might be related to faster processing speed for curvy over angular shapes and fonts might be related to learned statistical regularities that are utilized for categorization in real-world experience. learned statistical regularities that are utilized for categorization in real-world experience. learned statistical regularities that are utilized for categorization in real-world experience. For instance, animals are recognized faster than man-made objects, perhaps partially due For instance, animals are recognized faster than man-made objects, perhaps partially due For instance, animals are recognized faster than man-made objects, perhaps partially due to the mid-level visual differences among the two categories: animals tend to have curvy or to the mid-level visual differences among the two categories: animals tend to have curvy to the mid-level visual differences among the two categories: animals tend to have curvy round shapes, whereas man-made objects are often boxy or elongated ([24,25]; see also [26]). or round shapes, whereas man-made objects are often boxy or elongated ([24,25]; see also or round shapes, whereas man-made objects are often boxy or elongated ([24,25]; see also Nonetheless, as comparable response times between curvy and angular objects were also [26]). Nonetheless, as comparable response times between curvy and angular objects were [26]). Nonetheless, as comparable response times between curvy and angular objects were sometimes observed for preference judgment, it has been suggested that the preference for also sometimes observed for preference judgment, it has been suggested that the prefer- also sometimes observed for preference judgment, it has been suggested that the prefer- curvy over angular shapes might also arise beyond perceptual ﬂuency [7]. ence for ence for curv curvy y over over a ang ngu ular lar sh shape apes m s mi ight ght a al ls so o ar arise beyond percept ise beyond perceptual f ual fl lue uency [7 ncy [7]. ]. As the qualities of shapes and fonts show similar characteristics with regard to aesthetic As the qualities of shapes and fonts show similar characteristics with regard to aes- As the qualities of shapes and fonts show similar characteristics with regard to aes- impressions, semantic associations, and perceptual ﬂuency, the present study examined thetic impressions, semantic associations, and perceptual fluency, the present study ex- thetic impressions, semantic associations, and perceptual fluency, the present study ex- how these qualities may contribute to preferences for object-word pairs. This question is amined how these qualities may contribute to preferences for object-word pairs. This amined how these qualities may contribute to preferences for object-word pairs. This theoretically important because although preference judgments can be made for both shape question is theoretically important because although preference judgments can be made question is theoretically important because although preference judgments can be made and font qualities of objects and words, it remains unclear whether the same factors underlie for both shape and font qualities of objects and words, it remains unclear whether the for both shape and font qualities of objects and words, it remains unclear whether the the inﬂuences of these visual qualities on the processing of objects and words. New insights same factors underlie the influences of these visual qualities on the processing of objects same factors underlie the influences of these visual qualities on the processing of objects on the roles of preferred or disliked shape and font qualities on the evaluation process can and words. New insights on the roles of preferred or disliked shape and font qualities on and words. New insights on the roles of preferred or disliked shape and font qualities on be revealed and compared when the two categories are examined directly. Apart from the evaluation process can be revealed and compared when the two categories are exam- the evaluation process can be revealed and compared when the two categories are exam- preference ratings, additional measures such as response times and eye movements during ined directly. Apart from preference ratings, additional measures such as response times ined directly. Apart from preference ratings, additional measures such as response times the evaluation of the object-word pairs allow for the understanding of the impact of shape and eye movements during the evaluation of the object-word pairs allow for the under- and eye movements during the evaluation of the object-word pairs allow for the under- and font qualities on processing time of and attention allocation towards objects and words. st standin anding g of of t the he im impact pact o of f shap shape e and and fo font nt qu qualitie alities s o on n p processi rocessing ng ti tim me e o of f a and nd a atten ttention tion Note that preference ratings and response times could reveal similar or different patterns of allocation towards objects and words. Note that preference ratings and response times allocation towards objects and words. Note that preference ratings and response times results, which would suggest whether or how subjective preference and processing ﬂuency could reveal similar or different patterns of results, which would suggest whether or how could reveal similar or different patterns of results, which would suggest whether or how for visual qualities of objects and words might be related, and how attention might be subjective preference and processing fluency for visual qualities of objects and words subjective preference and processing fluency for visual qualities of objects and words allocated to the object or the word depending on the visual qualities. Moreover, although objects and words are often studied separately in a laboratory setting, it is quite common Vision 2022, 6, 22 3 of 12 that object-word pairs are shown simultaneously as a unit in everyday life, such as in the case of logos. Therefore, an investigation on shape and font qualities of object-word pairs may also have real-world implications on preferences for visual design of new brand logos [27]. In this study, we manipulated the preferred vs. disliked qualities for both shapes and fonts for object-word pairs. To minimize the potential semantic associations of familiar objects and words on the perception of shapes and fonts (e.g., [17]), only abstract objects and pseudowords were used in this study. If observers evaluate information from both objects and words equally, and the effects of preferred vs. disliked visual qualities from both categories are addictive, the highest preference ratings would be expected for object- word pairs with preferred shapes and fonts, whereas the lowest preference ratings would be expected for the pairs with disliked shapes and fonts. Another possibility is that the congruency between the shape and font qualities of the object-word pairs is also evaluated (e.g., see [28]), thus higher preference ratings would be expected for object-word pairs with preferred qualities for both components and for pairs with disliked qualities for both components, compared with pairs with preferred qualities for one component but disliked qualities for the other component. Alternatively, preferences and response times for object-word pairs might instead be driven by the visual qualities of only one but not both components, presumably the ﬁrst component that observers attend to. To examine how attention might be allocated to either the object or the word with different visual qualities, eye movements were recorded during the preference judgment. We focused on the measures of ﬁrst ﬁxations and total ﬁxations towards the object-word pairs. Previous studies showed that observers’ ﬁrst ﬁxations and total ﬁxation durations for pictorial or textual components depend on the relevance to their goals [29]: observers generally attended to the text over the image quicker and for a longer time on printed or webpage advertisement when considering making a purchase [30,31], but attended to the image quicker and for a longer time, compared with the text, when judging how much they liked the ad or how effective the ad was [32]. Based on these ﬁndings, we expected that when making the preference judgment of object-word pairs, the shape qualities might have a larger impact than font qualities, since the object might be ﬁxated ﬁrst and for a longer time, compared with the word. Moreover, differences in eye movements might also be expected between preferred and disliked qualities of shapes and fonts, since observers might be more likely to attend to preferred shapes and avoid attending to disliked shapes [8,33], but might be less likely to attend to preferred than disliked fonts [34–36]. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Participants Twenty-four undergraduate students (8 males and 16 females, M age = 19.42, SD = 1.39) from New York University Abu Dhabi (NYUAD) participated for course credits or subsis- tence allowance. All participants reported normal or corrected-to-normal vision. The study was approved by the NYUAD Institutional Review Board. All participants gave informed written consent prior to the experiment. 2.2. Apparatus The stimuli were presented on a BenQ XL2411Z monitor using a Windows desktop computer and participants responded by pressing one of the dedicated keys on a standard keyboard. Eye movements were measured using an EyeLink 1000 Plus eye tracker (SR Research Ltd., Ottawa, ON, Canada) operating at 1000 Hz. Head movement was stabilized using a chin and head rest. 2.3. Stimuli and Procedure 2.3.1. Pilot Study We conducted a pilot study to select the shapes and fonts for the main study. In the pilot study, a separate group of 18 participants (10 males and 8 females, M age = 22.67, Vision 2022, 6, 22 4 of 12 SD = 6.32) from the NYUAD community were presented with 400 grayscale images and were asked to provide preference ratings. Of those images, there were 200 different abstract shapes and the same letter-string ‘ABCDE’ writing in 200 different fonts. All of the abstract shapes were selected from the image set in [7], with 100 curvy shapes and 100 angular shapes. The 200 fonts were selected from a wide range of designs. Each shape or letter string was presented on a gray background of 256 pixels by 256 pixels in size. The presentation order of shape and font trials was blocked and counterbalanced across participants. On each trial, participants were ﬁrst shown a ﬁxation for 600 ms and then an image for 400 ms and were asked the extent they liked each shape or font on a 5-point scale, with 1 being the lowest (‘not at all’) and 5 being the highest (‘very much’). Participants were asked to respond as soon as possible, or within 10 s after stimulus onset (the average response time was 1302 ms, SD = 958 ms). For the analysis of the pilot results, the trials with very brief response times were excluded (<300 ms, 194 out of 7200 trials = 2.69%). According to the ratings collected in the pilot study, we selected a total of 96 shapes and 96 fonts. For both categories, we selected 48 images with high ratings and 48 images with low ratings. Note that for the shapes, we selected from only the curvy shapes for the preferred condition and only the angular shapes for the disliked condition. Two-sample t-tests conﬁrmed that the preferred shapes (M = 3.02, SD = 0.30) were rated signiﬁcantly higher than the disliked shapes (M = 2.37, SD = 0.27), t = 11.23, p < 0.0001, d = 2.29 and the preferred fonts (M = 3.24, SD = 0.21) were rated signiﬁcantly higher than the disliked fonts (M = 2.03, SD = 0.11), t = 35.91, p < 0.0001, d = 7.33. There was also no signiﬁcant difference in response times either between preferred (M = 1229 ms, SD = 101 ms) and disliked (M = 1232 ms, SD = 142 ms) shapes, t = 0.10, p = 0.92, d = 0.02, or between preferred (M = 1317 ms, SD = 208 ms) and disliked (M = 1346 ms, SD = 211 ms) fonts, t = 0.68, p = 0.50, d = 0.14. 2.3.2. Main Study In the main study, each stimulus was composed of one of the 96 shapes (48 preferred and 48 disliked shapes) and a pseudoword in the English language in one of the 96 fonts (48 preferred and 48 disliked fonts), presented side-by-side, with either the shape or the word presented immediately left or right of the center of the screen. Figure 1 illustrates the sample stimuli. There were a total of 48 four-letter nonsense words (e.g., ‘dipo’, ‘lomu’), each word presented once in a preferred font and once in a disliked font for each participant. We made two sets of pairings between each pseudoword and a preferred/disliked font to be presented to different participants (e.g., ‘dipo’ was paired with two different preferred fonts and two different disliked fonts), with the two sets counterbalanced across participants Vision 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 12 to minimize any possible effects that the preference judgment was made based on the pseudowords but not the fonts. Figure 1. Sample object–word stimuli in the four main experimental conditions: preferred shapes Figure 1. Sample object–word stimuli in the four main experimental conditions: preferred shapes with preferred and disliked fonts (top-left and bottom-left) and disliked shapes with preferred and with preferred and disliked fonts (top-left and bottom-left) and disliked shapes with preferred and disliked fonts (top-right and bottom right). disliked fonts (top-right and bottom right). Each shape or font was only shown once in the experiment to minimize prior expo- sure that could affect preference judgment [37]. The shapes and fonts were paired ran- domly on each trial. Specifically, half of the preferred shapes were paired with preferred fonts, whereas the rest of the preferred shapes were paired with disliked fonts. Likewise, half of the disliked shapes were paired with preferred fonts, whereas the rest of the dis- liked shapes were paired with disliked fonts. With each of the 4 shape–font conditions, the positions of the objects and words were counterbalanced: half of the trials showed the objects on the left and the words on the right, and the rest of the trials showed the words on the left and the objects on the right. There were a total of 192 trials, with 24 trials in each of the Shape quality (preferred vs. disliked), Font quality (preferred vs. disliked) and Position (shape-on-the-left vs. shape-on-the-right) conditions. Each object–word pair was presented on a gray background of 512 pixels in width and 256 pixels in height, subtend- ing a visual angle of 11.35° in width and 5.68° in height. The analysis of eye movement data towards the objects and words excluded the gap between the two stimuli (80 pixels). Participants were asked to treat each object–word pair as a logo and to indicate their preference for each logo on a 5-point scale (1 indicates ‘not at all’, whereas 5 indicates ‘very much’). On each trial, a fixation was presented at the center of the screen for 600 ms, followed by an object–word pair for 2 s. Participants were told to look at each display until the stimulus disappeared but were allowed to respond as soon as they saw the display, or up to 10 s after the stimulus onset. 3. Results For the analyses of preference ratings and response times, trials with extremely short (<200 ms) or extremely long (>4000 ms) response times were excluded (1.7% of the total number of trials). For the eye movement analysis, fixations that coincided with stimulus onset or the response, or extreme outliers (<60 ms or >1200 ms fixation duration) were excluded (4.6% of the total number of trials), resulting in a final data set consisting of 36,046 (out of 37,784) fixations. Figure 2 illustrates the preference ratings and response time results. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the results regarding the first fixations and the total fixations. Vision 2022, 6, 22 5 of 12 Each shape or font was only shown once in the experiment to minimize prior exposure that could affect preference judgment [37]. The shapes and fonts were paired randomly on each trial. Speciﬁcally, half of the preferred shapes were paired with preferred fonts, whereas the rest of the preferred shapes were paired with disliked fonts. Likewise, half of the disliked shapes were paired with preferred fonts, whereas the rest of the disliked shapes were paired with disliked fonts. With each of the 4 shape–font conditions, the positions of the objects and words were counterbalanced: half of the trials showed the objects on the left and the words on the right, and the rest of the trials showed the words on the left and the objects on the right. There were a total of 192 trials, with 24 trials in each of the Shape quality (preferred vs. disliked), Font quality (preferred vs. disliked) and Position (shape-on-the-left vs. shape-on-the-right) conditions. Each object–word pair was presented on a gray background of 512 pixels in width and 256 pixels in height, subtending a visual angle of 11.35 in width and 5.68 in height. The analysis of eye movement data towards the objects and words excluded the gap between the two stimuli (80 pixels). Participants were asked to treat each object–word pair as a logo and to indicate their preference for each logo on a 5-point scale (1 indicates ‘not at all’, whereas 5 indicates ‘very much’). On each trial, a ﬁxation was presented at the center of the screen for 600 ms, followed by an object–word pair for 2 s. Participants were told to look at each display until the stimulus disappeared but were allowed to respond as soon as they saw the display, or up to 10 s after the stimulus onset. 3. Results For the analyses of preference ratings and response times, trials with extremely short (<200 ms) or extremely long (>4000 ms) response times were excluded (1.7% of the total number of trials). For the eye movement analysis, ﬁxations that coincided with stimulus onset or the response, or extreme outliers (<60 ms or >1200 ms ﬁxation duration) were excluded (4.6% of the total number of trials), resulting in a ﬁnal data set consisting of 36,046 (out of 37,784) ﬁxations. Figure 2 illustrates the preference ratings and response Vision 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 12 time results. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the results regarding the ﬁrst ﬁxations and the total ﬁxations. Figure Figure 2. 2. Pr Prefe eferr ence ence ratings ( ratings (left left)) and response tim and response times es (RT, (RT, right right )) as a function of Shape quality and as a function of Shape quality and Font Font qual quality ity. . Because Because the main effec the main effects t and s and interactions interactions inv involving olving the the fact factor Position or Position (i (i.e., whether .e., whether the the object or word was shown on the left vs. right) was not significant, the plotted results were object or word was shown on the left vs. right) was not signiﬁcant, the plotted results were collapsed collapsed for that factor. Error bars represent standard errors. for that factor. Error bars represent standard errors. Figure 3. First fixation index (top panel) and first fixation duration (bottom panel) as a function of Shape quality and Font quality. Error bars represent standard errors. Vision 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 12 Figure 2. Preference ratings (left) and response times (RT, right) as a function of Shape quality and Font quality. Because the main effects and interactions involving the factor Position (i.e., whether Vision 2022, 6, 22 6 of 12 the object or word was shown on the left vs. right) was not significant, the plotted results were collapsed for that factor. Error bars represent standard errors. Vision 2022, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 12 Figure 3. First ﬁxation index (top panel) and ﬁrst ﬁxation duration (bottom panel) as a function of Figure 3. First fixation index (top panel) and first fixation duration (bottom panel) as a function of Shape quality and Font quality. Error bars represent standard errors. Shape quality and Font quality. Error bars represent standard errors. Figure 4. Total ﬁxation count (top panel) and total dwell time (bottom panel) as a function of Shape Figure 4. Total fixation count (top panel) and total dwell time (bottom panel) as a function of Shape quality and Font quality. Error bars represent standard errors. quality and Font quality. Error bars represent standard errors. 3.1. Preference Ratings An ANOVA was conducted on preference ratings with three within-subject factors: Shape quality (preferred vs. disliked), Font quality (preferred vs. disliked), and Position (left vs. right of center of screen). There was a significant main effect of Shape quality, F1,23 = 39.68, p < 0.001, ηp = 0.633, with higher ratings for preferred than disliked shapes. Both the main effects of Font quality (F1,23 = 0.68, p = 0.417, ηp = 0.029) and Position (F1,23 = 0.47, p = 0.502, ηp = 0.02) were not significant. There were also no significant two-way (Shape quality × Font quality: F1,23 = 2.05, p = 0.165, ηp = 0.082; Shape quality × Position: F1,23 = 2 2 0.46, p = 0.506, ηp = 0.019; Font quality × Position: F1,23 = 0.09, p = 0.765, ηp = 0.004) or three-way interactions (F1,23 = 0.19, p = 0.666, ηp = 0.008). These results suggest that regard- less of the positions of the objects or words, participants relied on the shape quality of the object instead of the font quality of the word for preference judgment. 3.2. Response Times (RT) An ANOVA was conducted on RT with three within-subject factors: Shape quality (preferred vs. disliked), Font quality (preferred vs. disliked), and Position (left vs. right of center of screen). There was a main effect of Shape quality, F1,23 = 5.00, p = 0.035, ηp = 0.18, with slower responses for preferred shapes than disliked shapes. There was also a main effect of Font quality, F1,23 = 5.61, p = 0.027, ηp = 0.20), with faster responses for preferred fonts than disliked fonts. The main effect of Position was not significant, F1,23 = 1.80, p = 0.19, ηp = 0.072. There were no significant two-way interactions (Shape quality × Font 2 2 quality: F1,23 = 0.27, p = 0.61, ηp = 0.012; Shape quality × Position: F1,23 = 0.1, p = 0.749, ηp = 0.005; Font quality × Position: F1,23 = 2.24, p = 0.148, ηp = 0.089) or three-way interactions (F1,23 = 3.46, p = 0.076, ηp = 0.13). 3.3. Eye Movements Vision 2022, 6, 22 7 of 12 3.1. Preference Ratings An ANOVA was conducted on preference ratings with three within-subject factors: Shape quality (preferred vs. disliked), Font quality (preferred vs. disliked), and Position (left vs. right of center of screen). There was a signiﬁcant main effect of Shape qual- ity, F = 39.68, p < 0.001, h = 0.633, with higher ratings for preferred than disliked 1,23 p shapes. Both the main effects of Font quality (F = 0.68, p = 0.417, h = 0.029) and 1,23 p Position (F = 0.47, p = 0.502, h = 0.02) were not signiﬁcant. There were also no sig- 1,23 niﬁcant two-way (Shape quality Font quality: F = 2.05, p = 0.165, h = 0.082; Shape 1,23 p quality Position: F = 0.46, p = 0.506, h = 0.019; Font quality Position: F = 0.09, 1,23 1,23 2 2 p = 0.765, h = 0.004) or three-way interactions (F = 0.19, p = 0.666, h = 0.008). p 1,23 p These results suggest that regardless of the positions of the objects or words, partici- pants relied on the shape quality of the object instead of the font quality of the word for preference judgment. 3.2. Response Times (RT) An ANOVA was conducted on RT with three within-subject factors: Shape quality (preferred vs. disliked), Font quality (preferred vs. disliked), and Position (left vs. right of center of screen). There was a main effect of Shape quality, F = 5.00, p = 0.035, h = 0.18, 1,23 p with slower responses for preferred shapes than disliked shapes. There was also a main effect of Font quality, F = 5.61, p = 0.027, h = 0.20), with faster responses for preferred 1,23 p fonts than disliked fonts. The main effect of Position was not signiﬁcant, F = 1.80, p = 0.19, 1,23 h = 0.072. There were no signiﬁcant two-way interactions (Shape quality Font quality: 2 2 F = 0.27, p = 0.61, h = 0.012; Shape quality Position: F = 0.1, p = 0.749, h = 0.005; p p 1,23 1,23 Font quality Position: F = 2.24, p = 0.148, h = 0.089) or three-way interactions 1,23 p (F = 3.46, p = 0.076, h = 0.13). 1,23 3.3. Eye Movements For the eye movement data, we focused on four measures on objects and words separately: ﬁrst ﬁxation index, ﬁrst ﬁxation duration, total ﬁxation count, and total dwell time. First ﬁxation index on either the object or the word indicated the number of ﬁxations it took the participant to ﬁrst ﬁxate each component. First ﬁxation duration indicated the duration of the ﬁrst ﬁxation on each component. Total ﬁxation count on either the object or the word indicated the total numbers of ﬁxations made on each component. Total dwell time indicated the duration of all ﬁxations on each component. A three-way ANOVA was conducted on each of these measures with within-subject factors: Focus (object vs. word), Shape quality (preferred vs. disliked), and Font quality (preferred vs. disliked). The analysis was conducted on data collapsed across the left vs. right positions for the objects and words, because the analysis focus was on the ﬁxations to the categories (object vs. word), and the factor Position was counterbalanced across conditions. 3.3.1. First Fixation Index There was a main effect of Focus, F = 17.62, p < 0.001, h = 0.434, with the ﬁrst 1,23 p ﬁxations made more frequently to the word than the object. The main effect of Shape quality was not signiﬁcant, F = 0.06, p = 0.801, h = 0.003. There was a main effect of Font quality, 1,23 p F = 4.36, p = 0.048, h = 0.159, which was modulated by a signiﬁcant interaction between 1,23 p Focus and Font quality, F = 7.67, p = 0.011, h = 0.25, with the effect of Font quality 1,23 p observed when the Focus was on the object but not the word. Speciﬁcally, although the ﬁrst ﬁxations were more likely made on the word than the object in all conditions (p’s < 0.02, Scheffé’s test), the difference was larger with the presence of disliked than preferred fonts (p < 0.01), suggesting that when the word was shown in disliked rather than preferred fonts, participants took additional ﬁxations on the word prior to initiating a ﬁxation to the object, presumably because disliked fonts required further processing than preferred fonts. There were no other signiﬁcant two-way interactions (Focus Shape quality: F = 2.79, 1,23 Vision 2022, 6, 22 8 of 12 2 2 p = 0.109, h = 0.108; Shape quality Font quality: F = 0.01, p = 0.914, h < 0.001) or p 1,23 p three-way interaction (F = 0.33, p = 0.572, h = 0.014). 1,23 3.3.2. First Fixation Duration There was a main effect of Focus, F = 76.38, p < 0.001, h = 0.769, with longer 1,23 p ﬁrst ﬁxations on objects than words. There were no main effects of either Shape qual- 2 2 ity (F = 0.02, p = 0.88, h = 0.001) or Font quality (F < 0.01, p = 0.99, h < 0.001). 1,23 p 1,23 p There was a signiﬁcant interaction between Focus and Font quality, F = 11.96, p = 0.002, 1,23 h = 0.342: although the ﬁrst ﬁxations were longer for objects than words in all condi- tions (p’s < 0.001, Scheffé’s test), the difference was reduced with the presence of disliked than preferred fonts (p = 0.002), presumably because participants switched attention from the object back to the word faster for disliked fonts, which likely required further pro- cessing, than for preferred fonts (p < 0.001, Scheffé’s test). There were no other signif- icant two-way interactions (Focus Shape quality: F = 0.02, p = 0.897, h < 0.001; 1,23 p Shape quality Font quality: F = 0.53, p = 0.474, h = 0.023) or three-way interaction 1,23 (F = 0.02, p = 0.622, h = 0.008). 1,23 p 3.3.3. Total Fixation Count There were no signiﬁcant main effects of Focus (F = 2.77, p = 0.109, h = 0.108), 1,23 Shape quality (F = 0.89, p = 0.355, h = 0.037), nor Font quality (F = 0.52, p = 0.478, 1,23 p 1,23 h = 0.022) on total ﬁxation count. However, there was an interaction between Focus and Shape quality, F = 20.9, p < 0.001, h = 0.476, and an interaction between Focus and Font 1,23 p quality, F = 26.47, p < 0.001, h = 0.535. Essentially, participants made approximately 1,23 p ﬁve ﬁxations across each object–word pair. Although the ﬁxations were quite evenly distributed across the object and the word, participants ﬁxated more frequently the word with disliked than preferred fonts (p = 0.007, Scheffé’s test), and on the object with preferred than disliked shapes (p = 0.006, Scheffé’s test). The interaction between Shape quality and Font quality (F = 0.55, p = 0.465, h = 0.023) and the three-way interaction (F = 0.21, 1,23 1,23 p = 0.654, h = 0.009) were not signiﬁcant. 3.3.4. Total Dwell Time The results of total dwell time were highly similar to those of total ﬁxation count. There were no signiﬁcant main effects of Focus (F = 0.01, p = 0.939, h < 0.001), Shape quality 1,23 p 2 2 (F = 1.07, p = 0.312, h = 0.044), nor Font quality (F = 0.32, p = 0.574, h = 0.014) p p 1,23 1,23 on total dwell time. However, there was an interaction between Focus and Shape quality, F = 19.69, p < 0.001, h = 0.461, and an interaction between Focus and Font quality, 1,23 p F = 37.95, p < 0.001, h = 0.623. Similar to the total ﬁxation count results, although the 1,23 p total dwell time on the object and the word was comparable, participants looked longer at the word with disliked than preferred fonts (p = 0.001, Scheffé’s test), and at the object with preferred than disliked shapes (p = 0.0005, Scheffé’s test). The interaction between Shape quality and Font quality (F = 2.03, p = 0.168, h = 0.081) and the three-way interaction 1,23 (F = 0.25, p = 0.624, h = 0.011) were not signiﬁcant. 1,23 p 4. Discussion To examine the effects of visual qualities on the evaluation of object-word pairs, we manipulated the qualities of shapes and fonts. We measured subjective preference, response times, and eye movements during the evaluation and observed different patterns of results across the measures. We found that preference ratings for the object-word pairs were primarily determined by the shape qualities of the objects, whereas the font qualities of the words appeared to have negligible effects. Speciﬁcally, higher preference ratings were observed when the objects had preferred than disliked shapes, regardless of whether the words were shown in preferred or disliked fonts. Moreover, the congruency between shape and font qualities did not appear to inﬂuence the preference ratings for the object-word pairs. This result might Vision 2022, 6, 22 9 of 12 be surprising: although both the preferred and disliked qualities of the shapes and fonts had been established in the pilot study, participants only relied on the shape qualities even when both sets of information were available in the main study. Consistent with previous studies, it is possible that during object processing, curvy shapes are generally preferred because of an aesthetic pleasantness [8,12,13] and angular shapes are generally disliked because of an indication of potential threat [14,15]. On the other hand, aesthetic values of font qualities may not be as critical during word processing even though preference judgment can be made for fonts. Nonetheless, both shape and font qualities had an impact on the evaluation process, as the response times for the preference decisions were inﬂuenced by both sets of qualities. More speciﬁcally, preferred vs. disliked shape and font qualities showed different effects, with longer response times found for preferred than disliked shapes and for disliked than preferred fonts. Although no differences in response times were observed for either shapes or fonts during the pilot study, it is important to emphasize that because opposite patterns of response times and total ﬁxations were observed for preferred vs. disliked shape and font qualities, it is unlikely that the same factors affect the processing of objects and words equally. Presumably, preferred shapes are more pleasant to look at compared with disliked shapes [8,12,13,33], while it may take longer to identify the words shown in disliked than preferred fonts (e.g., [10]). Similar differential effects of preferred vs. disliked shape and font qualities were also revealed in two of the eye movement measures, speciﬁcally the total ﬁxation count and total dwell time. Taken together, these results suggest that shape and font qualities do not produce identical effects on either preference ratings or processing time, and the amount of processing time for speciﬁc shape and font qualities is unlikely related to subjective preference for object-word pairs. Although participants evaluated both components of the object-word pairs, as they made comparable numbers of ﬁxations to each component and ﬁxated each component for approximately the same amount of time, subjective preference for object-word pairs may instead depend on certain aspects of the ﬁrst ﬁxations that participants made to either the object or the word. Since preference judgment is often made rapidly [2,7], it is conceivable that the ﬁrst impression for a single component could determine the preference towards the pair. We measured whether participants attended to the object or the word ﬁrst (ﬁrst ﬁxation index) and how long the ﬁrst ﬁxation was (ﬁrst ﬁxation duration). These two measures revealed the opposite results: participants attended to the word before the object, but the ﬁrst ﬁxation on the object was longer than the ﬁrst ﬁxation on the word. Such results were only partially consistent with previous ﬁndings of stronger inﬂuences of the pictorial than textual components during preference judgment, as the pictorial component of a printed advertisement was both ﬁxated quicker and longer than the textual component [32]. Nonetheless, because the preference ratings for object-word pairs were found to depend on only the shape qualities of the object and not the font qualities of the word, our results suggest that the preference judgment was not necessarily based on the component that participants ﬁrst attended to (i.e., the word), but instead the ﬁrst component that they examined for a sufﬁcient amount of time (i.e., the object). Why do words attract attention ﬁrst and why do shape qualities of an object show stronger inﬂuences on preference judgment than font qualities of a word? We suggest that the different processing goals for the two categories, or the differential functionality of the visual qualities of each of the categories, may play an important role. It is possible that attention is ﬁrst attracted to words than objects because it is quicker to process word meaning than shape meaning. Indeed, faster responses were found in a congruence judgment task when observers attended to the word before the object in object-word pairs (e.g., both are squares/circles, or one is a square and the other is a circle) [38]. More importantly, the impact of visual qualities may depend on the processing needs required for extracting meaning from the speciﬁc categories. For object processing, the shape qualities may signify the visual appearance but not necessarily the essence of the object (e.g., different shapes of sofas). In contrast, for word processing, the legibility of the font is critical to Vision 2022, 6, 22 10 of 12 identify the letters and access the word meaning and disliked fonts are often considered less legible than preferred fonts [10]. Therefore, although the qualities of shapes and fonts can both be evaluated and the preferred qualities of shapes and fonts are appreciated, the desirable characteristics of shapes and fonts serve different processing goals for extracting meaning from the categories. As our study aimed to examine the relative importance of shape and font qualities on preference judgment on object-word pairs, we expected that the participants would attend to either or both components in a serial manner. However, it is possible that participants might instead ﬁxate a central point of the display to evaluate the pair as a unit. Because our stimuli were presented at the center of the screen, where participants ﬁxated prior to the stimulus onset, we were not able to distinguish whether any initial ﬁxations located at the center of the display were relevant to the preference judgment. To clarify the eye movement strategies used by observers when viewing the object-word pairs, future studies may consider presenting the displays off center and examining whether participants adopt a holistic or analytical viewing strategy (e.g., [39]). Furthermore, since shapes and fonts alone may convey meaning [9,17], future investigation on shape and font qualities could use familiar objects and meaningful words to examine whether the effect of shape qualities on preference judgment remains robust, or whether higher-level factors such as semantic processing would instead lead to a stronger emphasis on font qualities. While our ﬁndings suggest that shape qualities have a more critical role than font qualities on subjective preference, further studies may examine the real-world implications of shape and font qualities on visual design of familiar compared with novel brand logos. 5. Conclusions Although preferred and disliked shape and font qualities can be consistently identiﬁed among observers, the present study revealed that subjective preference for object-word pairs was determined primarily by shape qualities of the object but not font qualities of the word. By studying the visual qualities of objects and words together, our ﬁndings provide new insights that the desirable shape and font qualities may serve different processing goals for the categories. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, O.S.C. and O.H.; investigation, O.H.; data curation, O.H. and T.T.; formal analysis, O.S.C., O.H. and T.T.; funding acquisition, O.H.; visualization, O.S.C., O.H. and T.T.; writing—original draft, O.S.C.; writing—review and editing, O.S.C., O.H. and T.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was supported by a capstone grant awarded to O.H. by New York University Abu Dhabi. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of New York University Abu Dhabi (protocol #093-2016, approved on 1 November 2016). Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: The data and analysis code for this study are available at https://osf.io/56h8s/. Acknowledgments: The authors thank Emma Wei Chen and Julie Xixuan Liu for helpful discussions and assistance in data analysis. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. References 1. Reber, R.; Schwarz, N.; Winkielman, P. Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver ’s Processing Experience? Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2004, 8, 364–382. [CrossRef] 2. Corradi, G.; Belman, M.; Currò, T.; Chuquichambi, E.G.; Rey, C.; Nadal, M. Aesthetic Sensitivity to Curvature in Real Objects and Abstract Designs. Acta Psychol. 2019, 197, 124–130. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Cunningham, W.A.; Raye, C.L.; Johnson, M.K. Implicit and Explicit Evaluation: FMRI Correlates of Valence, Emotional Intensity, and Control in the Processing of Attitudes. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2004, 16, 1717–1729. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Vision 2022, 6, 22 11 of 12 4. Greenwald, A.G.; McGhee, D.E.; Schwartz, J.L.K. Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 1464–1480. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. Lebrecht, S.; Bar, M.; Barrett, L.F.; Tarr, M.J. Micro-Valences: Perceiving Affective Valence in Everyday Objects. Front. Psychol. 2012, 3, 107. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 6. Cotter, K.N.; Silvia, P.J.; Bertamini, M.; Palumbo, L.; Vartanian, O. Curve Appeal: Exploring Individual Differences in Preference for Curved Versus Angular Objects. i-Percept 2017, 8, 204166951769302. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 7. Bar, M.; Neta, M. Humans Prefer Curved Visual Objects. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 17, 645–648. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 8. Bertamini, M.; Palumbo, L.; Gheorghes, T.N.; Galatsidas, M. Do Observers like Curvature or Do They Dislike Angularity? Br. J. Psychol. 2016, 107, 154–178. [CrossRef] 9. Palumbo, L.; Ruta, N.; Bertamini, M. Comparing Angular and Curved Shapes in Terms of Implicit Associations and Ap- proach/Avoidance Responses. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0140043. [CrossRef] 10. Velasco, C.; Woods, A.T.; Hyndman, S.; Spence, C. The Taste of Typeface. i-Percept 2015, 6, 204166951559304. [CrossRef] 11. Palumbo, L.; Bertamini, M. The Curvature Effect: A Comparison Between Preference Tasks. Empir. Stud. Arts 2016, 34, 35–52. [CrossRef] 12. Gómez-Puerto, G.; Munar, E.; Nadal, M. Preference for Curvature: A Historical and Conceptual Framework. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2015, 9, 712. [CrossRef] 13. Kastl, A.J.; Child, I.L. Emotional Meaning of Four Typographical Variables. J. Appl. Psychol. 1968, 52, 440–446. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Bar, M.; Neta, M. Visual Elements of Subjective Preference Modulate Amygdala Activation. Neuropsychologia 2007, 45, 2191–2200. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Larson, C.L.; Aronoff, J.; Sarinopoulos, I.C.; Zhu, D.C. Recognizing Threat: A Simple Geometric Shape Activates Neural Circuitry for Threat Detection. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2009, 21, 1523–1535. [CrossRef] 16. Tannenbaum, P.H.; Jacobson, H.K.; Norris, E.L. An Experimental Investigation of Typeface Connotations. Journal. Q. 1964, 41, 65–73. [CrossRef] 17. Lewis, C.; Walker, P. Typographic Inﬂuences on Reading. Br. J. Psychol. 1989, 80, 241–257. [CrossRef] 18. Oppenheimer, D.M.; Frank, M.C. A Rose in Any Other Font Would Not Smell as Sweet: Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Categorization. Cognition 2008, 106, 1178–1194. [CrossRef] 19. Alter, A.L.; Oppenheimer, D.M. Effects of Fluency on Psychological Distance and Mental Construal (or Why New York Is a Large City, but New York Is a Civilized Jungle). Psychol. Sci. 2008, 19, 161–167. [CrossRef] 20. Spence, C.; Deroy, O. On the Shapes of Flavours: A Review of Four Hypotheses. Theor. Hist. Sci. 2014, 10, 207–238. [CrossRef] 21. Velasco, C.; Woods, A.T.; Deroy, O.; Spence, C. Hedonic Mediation of the Crossmodal Correspondence between Taste and Shape. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 41, 151–158. [CrossRef] 22. Reber, R.; Wurtz, P.; Zimmermann, T.D. Exploring “Fringe” Consciousness: The Subjective Experience of Perceptual Fluency and Its Objective Bases. Conscious. Cogn. 2004, 13, 47–60. [CrossRef] 23. Bertamini, M.; Palumbo, L.; Redies, C. An Advantage for Smooth Compared with Angular Contours in the Speed of Processing Shape. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 2019, 45, 1304–1318. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 24. Long, B.; Störmer, V.S.; Alvarez, G.A. Mid-Level Perceptual Features Contain Early Cues to Animacy. J. Vis. 2017, 17, 20. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 25. Zachariou, V.; Del Giacco, A.C.; Ungerleider, L.G.; Yue, X. Bottom-up Processing of Curvilinear Visual Features Is Sufﬁcient for Animate/Inanimate Object Categorization. J. Vis. 2018, 18, 1–12. [CrossRef] 26. He, C.; Cheung, O.S. Category Selectivity for Animals and Man-Made Objects: Beyond Low- and Mid-Level Visual Features. J. Vis. 2019, 19, 1–14. [CrossRef] 27. Bresciani, S.; Del Ponte, P. New Brand Logo Design: Customers’ Preference for Brand Name and Icon. J. Brand Manag. 2017, 24, 375–390. [CrossRef] 28. Makin, A.D.J. The Gap Between Aesthetic Science and Aesthetic Experience. J. Conscious. Stud. 2017, 24, 184–213. 29. Yarbus, A.L. Eye Movements and Vision; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1967; ISBN 978-1-4899-5381-0. 30. Rayner, K.; Rotello, C.M.; Stewart, A.J.; Keir, J.; Duffy, S.A. Integrating Text and Pictorial Information: Eye Movements When Looking at Print Advertisements. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2001, 7, 219–226. [CrossRef] 31. Wedel, M.; Pieters, R. Eye Fixations on Advertisements and Memory for Brands: A Model and Findings. Mark. Sci. 2000, 19, 297–312. [CrossRef] 32. Rayner, K.; Miller, B.; Rotello, C.M. Eye Movements When Looking at Print Advertisements: The Goal of the Viewer Matters. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2008, 22, 697–707. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 33. Rinck, M.; Becker, E.S. Spider Fearful Individuals Attend to Threat, Then Quickly Avoid It: Evidence from Eye Movements. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 2006, 115, 231–238. [CrossRef] 34. Rayner, K. Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research. Psychol. Bull. 1998, 124, 372–422. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 35. Rayner, K.; Reichle, E.D.; Stroud, M.J.; Williams, C.C.; Pollatsek, A. The Effect of Word Frequency, Word Predictability, and Font Difﬁculty on the Eye Movements of Young and Older Readers. Psychol. Aging 2006, 21, 448–465. [CrossRef] Vision 2022, 6, 22 12 of 12 36. Slattery, T.J.; Rayner, K. The Inﬂuence of Text Legibility on Eye Movements during Reading. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2010, 24, 1129–1148. [CrossRef] 37. Perfect, T.J.; Heatherley, S. Preference for Advertizements, Logos, and Names: Effects of Implicit Memory. Psychol. Rep. 1997, 80, 803–808. [CrossRef] 38. Seymour, P.H.K. Order of Fixation Effects in Classiﬁcation of Word-Shape Pairs. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 1970, 22, 440–449. [CrossRef] 39. Chuk, T.; Crookes, K.; Hayward, W.G.; Chan, A.B.; Hsiao, J.H. Hidden Markov Model Analysis Reveals the Advantage of Analytic Eye Movement Patterns in Face Recognition across Cultures. Cognition 2017, 169, 102–117. [CrossRef]

Journal

Vision – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Apr 12, 2022

Keywords: preference; category; eye movement; shape; font

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Preference at First Sight: Effects of Shape and Font Qualities on Evaluation of Object-Word Pairs

Preference at First Sight: Effects of Shape and Font Qualities on Evaluation of Object-Word Pairs

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Preference at First Sight: Effects of Shape and Font Qualities on Evaluation of Object-Word Pairs

Preference at First Sight: Effects of Shape and Font Qualities on Evaluation of Object-Word Pairs

References (40)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies