Aesthetic evaluation and the perceived properties of Chinese characters

Qinjing Zhang; Hiroyuki Mitsudo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318353

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 8, 2024
11 Jul 2024 Decision Letter - J Malo, Editor PONE-D-24-04493Aesthetic evaluation and the perceived properties of Chinese charactersPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhang, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the all the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 25 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, J Malo Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Review of Aesthetic Evaluation and the Perceived Properties of Chinese Characters Qinjing Zhang and Hiroyuki Mitsudo The psychological research on complexity is much more nuanced. It is an oversimplification to say that 'aesthetic evaluation improves when a stimulus is perceived as more complex'. Sometimes there is an inverted-U function, sometimes there are simplicity effects. The literature on this subject needs to be described more fully. Geometric figures however are also less naturalistic and generalizable than more familiar images like faces and scenes so there is a trade-off between using them and more abstract patterns. The 'Figures and Artworks' sections is under-described. A few studies are cited, but towards what end, to justify use of characters? Familiarization effects and number of elements are described but the purpose of this section needs to me made more explicit. Do ideographs also look like the things they represesent? Any predicted differences in interpretation or preference for symbolic, phonetic, pictographic or hybrid forms? Predictions regarding meaning in characters? How might meaning affect symmetry, complexity, and prototypicality compared to purely geometric patterns without semantics? Why only five characters? They all represent grasses and so are controlled for meaning but doesn't this severely limit the generalizability of the results? Given the large number of such characters used in an alphabet, isn't this quite limiting? Motivations for using the different fonts are needed. How did these differ from one another structurally and stylistically and why were they chosen? How were the various metrics calculated? There are three types of symmetry and within these various quantitative amounts. I don't see a detailed mention of this. Cursive fonts contain curvature, which is preferred more than straight lines. There is fairly extensive recent work on these differences, but this is not mentioned. There is no discussion section after Experiment 1. What was the motivation for Experiment 2? This should flow consequentially from the meaning of the results of the prior study. It isn't enough to just say these are the methodological differences as described below. I wonder if prototypicality effects can be explained in terms of facilitating lexical access to stored meaning. A prototype may more easily activated stored meaning than a more average or outlying representation. Figure 1, y-axis and quantitative aspect of the x-axis not described. Greater bulges are greater variance... Fully label axes in Figure 2, same going forward for other figures. How does this work connect to the aesthetic research on geometric figures, artwork, and naturalistic images like faces and landscapes? ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Jay Friedenberg ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318353.r001
Revision 1
22 Aug 2024 Author Response Response to Reviewer Thank you very much for providing helpful comments and suggestions on our original manuscript. Based on all the comments made by Reviewer #1, we revised the manuscript. In short, we expanded on the introduction, method, and general discussion sections. Changed parts in the revised manuscript are highlighted by blue text. The following are the comments made by Reviewer #1 and our responses. Page and line numbers indicate those of the revised manuscript. Comment #1: The psychological research on complexity is much more nuanced. It is an oversimplification to say that 'aesthetic evaluation improves when a stimulus is perceived as more complex'. Sometimes there is an inverted-U function, sometimes there are simplicity effects. The literature on this subject needs to be described more fully. Response: In response to this comment, we revised the relevant sentence in the first paragraph of the Introduction in accordance with your suggestion (pp. 2-3, lines 37-40). The revised sentences reads: " In contrast to the case of symmetry, the relation between complexity and aesthetic evaluation is less straightforward [2]. Some studies suggest an inverted U-shape relationship between complexity and aesthetic evaluation, where aesthetic evaluation increases when the stimulus complexity is intermediate [3] ." Comment #2: Geometric figures however are also less naturalistic and generalizable than more familiar images like faces and scenes so there is a trade-off between using them and more abstract patterns. The 'Figures and Artworks' sections is under-described. A few studies are cited, but towards what end, to justify use of characters? Familiarization effects and number of elements are described but the purpose of this section needs to me made more explicit. Response: In an attempt to clearly explain the background for our stimulus choice, we made two changes in the manuscript. First, we changed the label of the subsection heading (p. 3, line 48) as "Visual object category." Second, we rewrote the relevant section to expand on why we needed a stimulus category where perceived properties and meaning are easily manipulated (p. 3, lines 49-63). Comment #3: Do ideographs also look like the things they represesent? Any predicted differences in interpretation or preference for symbolic, phonetic, pictographic or hybrid forms? Response: The ideographs in ancient China were similar to the things represented. However, ideographs we use today is no longer resemble things they represented. As a matter of fact, it was difficult to present specific predictions from the idiographic aspects of Chinese characters. We corrected misleading expressions (p. 4, lines 67-60) and the revised sentences are as follows: ".... Elementary parts of Chinese characters have ideographic origins. Whereas phonetic scripts such as the alphabet only contain sound features, ideographic characters are useful to convey meanings through visual image features. Therefore, Chinese characters can be regarded as stimuli that can not only be easily manipulated as patterns, but also carry meanings similar to visual artworks." Comment #4: Predictions regarding meaning in characters? How might meaning affect symmetry, complexity, and prototypicality compared to purely geometric patterns without semantics? Response: Because the explanation about the meaning of our Chinese character stimuli was insufficient, we made three changes in the revised manuscript. In short, we believe that the meaning of Chinese characters itself is unlikely to alter ratings in our experiments. First, we added a sentence stating that we chose characters with relatively neutral emotional valences (p. 5, line 97-99). Second, we added an explanation that no characters explicitly meant symmetry, complexity, prototypicality, or beauty on p. 6 (line 130) as well as a figure showing all character meaning with English translation (Fig 1 and p. 7, lines 138-140). Third, we added a paragraph to discuss the possibility that meaning might affect aesthetic evaluation through lexical access suggested by Comment #11 (p. 21, lines 389-396). Comment #5: Why only five characters? They all represent grasses and so are controlled for meaning but doesn't this severely limit the generalizability of the results? Given the large number of such characters used in an alphabet, isn't this quite limiting? Response: Because our description on the stimuli was misleading, we made several changes in the revised manuscript as follows. The number of characters (with different meanings) were 18 and each of them was presented by five different fonts (in Experiment 1) and calligraphic scripts (in Experiment 2). To show this point explicitly, we added a sentence in the introduction (p. 5, line 99-101) and the new Fig 1 to make it clear enough to understand. Because the five example characters (representing grasses) were inaccurately displayed, they were replaced by other characters (representing “present”; Figs 2 and 4). We also expanded on the note of the new Fig 2 in an attempt to describe the number of characters explicitly (p. 7, lines 143-146). Comment #6: Motivations for using the different fonts are needed. How did these differ from one another structurally and stylistically and why were they chosen? Response: We used several fonts to make this study comprehensive since different fonts have been used for various situations in China and Japan. To explain this point, we added sentences on p. 5 (lines 97-99) and p. 7 (lines132-137). Detailed descriptions of the fonts were also provided on p. 7. Similar changes were made for Experiment 2 (p. 14, lines 265-270). Comment #7: How were the various metrics calculated? There are three types of symmetry and within these various quantitative amounts. I don't see a detailed mention of this. Response: We did not calculate metrics of image features (i.e., symmetry and complexity). Instead, we asked participants to rate the perceived symmetry, complexity, and prototypicality of each character in Experiments 1 and 2. To make this point more explicit, we modified the relevant descriptions throughout the manuscript including figure labels (e.g., p. 5, line 103 and Figs 3 and 5). Comment #8: Cursive fonts contain curvature, which is preferred more than straight lines. There is fairly extensive recent work on these differences, but this is not mentioned. Response: Following this comment, we cited Bar et al. (2006) and added a paragraph to discuss this issue on p. 20-21 (lines 373-377). Comment #9: There is no discussion section after Experiment 1. Response: We added a discussion paragraph of Experiment 1 on pp. 13 (lines 227-238) by modifying and moving the paragraph which discussed the results of Experiment 1 from in the General discussion section of the original manuscript. Comment #10: What was the motivation for Experiment 2? This should flow consequentially from the meaning of the results of the prior study. It isn't enough to just say these are the methodological differences as described below. Response: Following this comment, we added the preamble of Experiment 2. In short, the purpose of this experiment was to examine whether the font-dependent aesthetic evaluations found in Experiment 1 was replicated for Chinese calligraphy scripts (p. 13, lines 240-246). Comment #11: I wonder if prototypicality effects can be explained in terms of facilitating lexical access to stored meaning. A prototype may more easily activated stored meaning than a more average or outlying representation. Response: To discuss this issue, we added a paragraph in the General discussion section (p. 21, lines 389-396). The paragraph reads: "A reviewer asked as to consider the possibility that the association between prototypicality and aesthetic evaluation may be explained by lexical access to meaning represented by the characters. As an extreme case, consider that the meaning of all stimuli is positive. In this case, prototypical fonts or scripts would produce a higher aesthetic evaluation as a consequence of the metacognitive decision based on the stimulus content [2]. However, this possibility is unlikely since we selected and used character stimuli whose mean emotional valence was very close to neutral (mean = 2.06 on a rating scale of 1 to 3; Fig 1). Therefore, the present data provide evidence for Reber et al.’s idea that prototypicality increases aesthetic evaluation independently of the stimulus content [2]." Comment #12: Figure 1, y-axis and quantitative aspect of the x-axis not described. Greater bulges are greater variance... Response: We modified the labels of new Fig 2 and added an explanation. The width of violin plots represents relative frequencies of beauty rating values (p. 7, lines 145-146). Comment #13: Fully label axes in Figure 2, same going forward for other figures. Response: Following this comment, we added details of axis labels of new Figs 2-5. Comment #14: How does this work connect to the aesthetic research on geometric figures, artwork, and naturalistic images like faces and landscapes? Response: To discuss an implication of this study, we added a paragraph in the General discussion section (pp. 23, lines 434-445). The paragraph reads: "Recent studies using several types of visual pattern have indicated unique roles of familiarization on aesthetic evaluation [1,9]. As described in the introduction, familiarization is involved in the formation of prototypicality. Positive correlations between prototypicality and aesthetic evaluation found for several scripts (e.g., the Semi-cursive scripts) are generally in line with the previous studies using face images [9,10]. However, no significant negative correlation was found between prototypicality and aesthetic evaluation for any script. Notably, negative correlations between familiarization and aesthetic evaluation have been reported for landscape images [9,10] and geometrical patterns [1], indicating a positive contribution of novelty on aesthetic evaluation. Considering the previous and present results, we speculate that faces and meaningful Chinese characters are aesthetically evaluated by familiarity-based mechanisms, whereas landscape and geometrical figures are evaluated by novelty-based mechanisms." https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318353.r002
15 Jan 2025 Decision Letter - Sadiq H. Abdulhussain, Editor Aesthetic evaluation and the perceived properties of Chinese characters PONE-D-24-04493R1 Dear Dr. Zhang, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Sadiq H. Abdulhussain, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #2: In this study, an aesthetic evaluation for Chinese characters is presented. The authors have addressed the raised comments. Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Jay Friedenberg Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318353.r003
Formally Accepted
23 Jan 2025 Acceptance Letter - Sadiq H. Abdulhussain, Editor PONE-D-24-04493R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhang, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Sadiq H. Abdulhussain Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318353.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .