Different clues from different views

the role of image format in public perceptions of neuroimaging results

Madeleine Keehner, Lisa Mayberry, Martin H. Fischer

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    38 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    We examined whether different types of brain images affect readers' evaluations of scientific reports. Five different brain images were selected from the neuroscience literature: a whole brain, an inflated brain, a cross-sectional brain slice, a glass brain, and a topographic map. First, the images were subjectively rated by 31 nonexperts for qualities associated with realism and perceived complexity. Each of the five images was later presented alongside one of five fictitious neuroscience articles (image-text pairings counterbalanced), and a different group of 122 novices rated the accompanying articles for scientific reasoning. They also separately reported their familiarity with each image type. Brain images previously rated as more three-dimensional produced more positive evaluations of the articles with which they were presented. Perceived image complexity also showed a marginal nonlinear relationship with article credibility ratings. Our findings suggest that choice of image format matters when disseminating neuroscience research to the general public.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)422-428
    Number of pages7
    JournalPsychonomic Bulletin & Review
    Volume18
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Apr 2011

    Cite this

    Keehner, Madeleine ; Mayberry, Lisa ; Fischer, Martin H. / Different clues from different views : the role of image format in public perceptions of neuroimaging results. In: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2011 ; Vol. 18, No. 2. pp. 422-428.
    @article{8d06e77064374ef1bc9450e2ed24784d,
    title = "Different clues from different views: the role of image format in public perceptions of neuroimaging results",
    abstract = "We examined whether different types of brain images affect readers' evaluations of scientific reports. Five different brain images were selected from the neuroscience literature: a whole brain, an inflated brain, a cross-sectional brain slice, a glass brain, and a topographic map. First, the images were subjectively rated by 31 nonexperts for qualities associated with realism and perceived complexity. Each of the five images was later presented alongside one of five fictitious neuroscience articles (image-text pairings counterbalanced), and a different group of 122 novices rated the accompanying articles for scientific reasoning. They also separately reported their familiarity with each image type. Brain images previously rated as more three-dimensional produced more positive evaluations of the articles with which they were presented. Perceived image complexity also showed a marginal nonlinear relationship with article credibility ratings. Our findings suggest that choice of image format matters when disseminating neuroscience research to the general public.",
    author = "Madeleine Keehner and Lisa Mayberry and Fischer, {Martin H.}",
    year = "2011",
    month = "4",
    doi = "10.3758/s13423-010-0048-7",
    language = "English",
    volume = "18",
    pages = "422--428",
    journal = "Psychonomic Bulletin & Review",
    issn = "1069-9384",
    publisher = "Springer Verlag",
    number = "2",

    }

    Different clues from different views : the role of image format in public perceptions of neuroimaging results. / Keehner, Madeleine; Mayberry, Lisa; Fischer, Martin H.

    In: Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Vol. 18, No. 2, 04.2011, p. 422-428.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Different clues from different views

    T2 - the role of image format in public perceptions of neuroimaging results

    AU - Keehner, Madeleine

    AU - Mayberry, Lisa

    AU - Fischer, Martin H.

    PY - 2011/4

    Y1 - 2011/4

    N2 - We examined whether different types of brain images affect readers' evaluations of scientific reports. Five different brain images were selected from the neuroscience literature: a whole brain, an inflated brain, a cross-sectional brain slice, a glass brain, and a topographic map. First, the images were subjectively rated by 31 nonexperts for qualities associated with realism and perceived complexity. Each of the five images was later presented alongside one of five fictitious neuroscience articles (image-text pairings counterbalanced), and a different group of 122 novices rated the accompanying articles for scientific reasoning. They also separately reported their familiarity with each image type. Brain images previously rated as more three-dimensional produced more positive evaluations of the articles with which they were presented. Perceived image complexity also showed a marginal nonlinear relationship with article credibility ratings. Our findings suggest that choice of image format matters when disseminating neuroscience research to the general public.

    AB - We examined whether different types of brain images affect readers' evaluations of scientific reports. Five different brain images were selected from the neuroscience literature: a whole brain, an inflated brain, a cross-sectional brain slice, a glass brain, and a topographic map. First, the images were subjectively rated by 31 nonexperts for qualities associated with realism and perceived complexity. Each of the five images was later presented alongside one of five fictitious neuroscience articles (image-text pairings counterbalanced), and a different group of 122 novices rated the accompanying articles for scientific reasoning. They also separately reported their familiarity with each image type. Brain images previously rated as more three-dimensional produced more positive evaluations of the articles with which they were presented. Perceived image complexity also showed a marginal nonlinear relationship with article credibility ratings. Our findings suggest that choice of image format matters when disseminating neuroscience research to the general public.

    U2 - 10.3758/s13423-010-0048-7

    DO - 10.3758/s13423-010-0048-7

    M3 - Article

    VL - 18

    SP - 422

    EP - 428

    JO - Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

    JF - Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

    SN - 1069-9384

    IS - 2

    ER -