State of the art

Our research is motivated by the need to examine how the rapid development of AI and its growing accessibility are reshaping our cultural and visual environment. Visual art has evolved over thousands of years, carrying features deeply rooted in human cognition and cultural expression. With AI now emerging as a potential creator of art, the question arises of how this affects the visual landscape around us.

Some visual phenomena are more readily noticeable than others, naturally drawing attention to how AI handles them. For instance, several studies have addressed racial and gender biases in AI-generated art (e.g., [2–5]). However, other phenomena are far more subtle, so deeply embedded in cultural convention that they often go unnoticed and may shift imperceptibly over time. One such phenomenon is the influence of reading and writing direction on spatial composition. This article specifically investigates whether spatial asymmetry—shaped by reading direction and characteristic of human-created art—is also present in AI-generated images.

A significant body of research on the so-called spatial agency bias has shown that in human-created art (in western cultures), the semantic agent (i.e., the protagonist causing an action) is more frequently placed on the left side of the composition, while the semantic patient (i.e., the entity affected by the action) is positioned on the right of the composition [1]. This asymmetrical pattern has been observed in various forms of visual media, including photography and historical paintings. Early explanations for this asymmetry attributed it to brain lateralization (e.g., [6]) or universal aesthetic preferences (e.g., [7–11]. However, later research [8] demonstrated that this asymmetry in aesthetic preference is prevalent only in cultures that read from left to right.

Maas & Russo [12] investigated the role of cultural influences on spatial representation by adapting the experimental design of Chatterjee et al. [13] to include participants from distinct cultural backgrounds. The study involved 33 Italian speakers (who use a left-to-right writing system), 29 Arabic speakers (whose script runs from right to left), and 50 bicultural Arabic speakers living in Italy, familiar with both writing directions. Notably, despite their contrasting scripts, both Italian and Arabic languages share a subject–verb–object syntactic structure. Participants were asked to read simple active sentences (e.g., ‘the girl pushes the boy’) and then draw corresponding scenes. Italian participants showed a strong leftward spatial bias, placing the first-mentioned entity to the left in 83% of drawings, aligning with their writing direction. Arabic participants, by contrast, placed the agent on the right in 61% of cases. The bicultural group exhibited no consistent spatial preference.

Similarly, Maas et al. [1] experimentally explored the connection between reading-writing direction and agent placement: When the agent is mentioned first in a sentence, the spatial agency bias is amplified, but the asymmetry diminishes when the agent is mentioned second. This suggest that the tendency to place agents on the left may reflect the agent-verb-patient (AVP) structure in active sentences prevalent in many Western languages. The spatial agency bias has been further confirmed across various studies in aesthetic preferences [14–19], visual fixations patterns [20], in the preferences of children perception [21–24] and comprehension [25,26].

Closely related is the so-called “advantage of first mention” [27]. This effect describes a cognitive bias in which the first-mentioned entity in a sentence is more likely to be positioned on the left of the visual representations, particularly in left-to-right reading cultures (which is why this bias is also called the “left-to-right preference” [28]). Prior research has shown that people process the first-mentioned subjects more easily than the later-mentioned ones [27,29,30].

While the spatial agency bias and advantage of first mention have been extensively studied with active sentences [12,13,31], studies investigating how these biases manifest in non-active structures are still relatively scarce (e.g. [32] for visual fixations).

In our previous research [33], we explored the interaction of the spatial agency bias and the advantage of first mention. We conducted a large-scale study with 300 participants across three languages (Spanish, Czech, and German). Participants were asked to sketch simple sentences either with an agent-verb-patient (AVP) structure or a patient-verb-agent (PVA) structure. We were particularly interested in whether, in the PVA structure condition, spatial placement would align more strongly with the spatial agency bias or the advantage of first mention. We also considered the potential influence of linguistic differences, as the frequency and acceptability of PVA structures vary across the three languages. The results are presented in Fig 1. In AVP sentences, there was a clear bias toward placing the agent to the left in all three languages. However, in PVA sentences, no clear spatial pattern emerged, and agents were not significantly more likely to be placed to the right than to the left.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Results of the study exploring German, Spanish and Czech position biases [33].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326729.g001

In the present paper, we investigate whether AI-generated images reproduce the spatial asymmetries observed in human-created visual representations when prompted in English, a prototypical left-to-right writing language where the agent–verb–patient (AVP) predominates [34]. English is the most studied language in relation to spatial asymmetry, making it an ideal starting point for examining whether such culturally influenced biases extend to outputs generated by artificial intelligence.

To our knowledge, no existing studies have directly addressed the role of reading and writing direction in shaping spatial composition in AI-generated images.

Studied language and sentences used as prompts

We used English as the prompt language in this study. While it would be interesting to use prompts in multiple languages to investigate the influence of reading direction, doing so is currently infeasible due to the way these models process input: In most systems that support API-based image generation, prompts written in non-English languages, particularly those with right-to-left (RTL) scripts, are internally translated into English in an intermediate step, before image generation. As a result, any potential visual influence from the syntax or reading direction of those languages is lost in translation.

This issue was confirmed during our preliminary testing. Both models showed problems dealing with prompts in languages other than English, but each model showed different problems:

When we tried our prompts with DALL⋅E 3 in both German (a left-to-right) and Hebrew (a right-to-left language), all prompts were automatically translated into English before the models generated the images. Consequently, we can expect that currently, even when prompts are written in languages other than English, the resulting images can only reflect the syntactic and spatial conventions of English rather than those of the original languages. A different problem occurred when we tried prompting FLUX in languages other than English: When prompted in Hebrew, the model produced culturally generic scenes (such as Middle Eastern architecture or stereotypically Middle Eastern people attending the market) rather than illustrations of the sentence content. Prompts in German yielded slightly better results. In some cases, the generated images reflected fragments of the sentence, but often failed to depict the full scene. For instance, the prompt “Eine einfache Skizze von: Die Katze jagt die Maus.” (“A simple sketch of: The cat is chasing the mouse”) frequently resulted in images showing only a cat, two cats, or a cat with a dog. Very rarely the image succeeded in including a mouse or a clear chase scene.

These pilot results informed our decision to use English exclusively for the main experiment at this time. This choice ensures that we are testing the models’ spatial biases as they are shaped by an English language prompt. It also avoids the confounding effects of translation.

As stimuli-sentences, we constructed twenty sentences in total: ten active sentences with an agent-verb-patient (AVP) word order and ten corresponding passive sentences with the same protagonists and semantics in a patient-verb-agent (PVA) structure (see Table 1). We selected this number of prompt sentences and varied their syntactic structures to enable comparison with findings from research on spatial asymmetries in human participants. In prior research, active sentences are used most frequently (e.g., [12]), but some studies also included passive sentences (e.g., [36]). Other syntactic constructions are rare (but see, e.g., [33]). Ten sentences per syntactic construction seemed a sufficient number, as studies with human participants usually involve fewer critical items (the maximum being ten [33]), and the number of participants typically generates fewer pictures than our 100 iterations of each sentence with each model. The resulting 4,000 pictures provide a robust database for the purpose of our analysis.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Active and passive sentence transformations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326729.t001

The sentence content was inspired by materials commonly used in spatial conceptualization research as well as in our own prior studies, for example “the cat is chasing the mouse” or “the boy is pushing the girl”. Each sentence involved two clearly discernable protagonists and a verb that leads toward a linear spatial positioning between the entities.

We pre-tested a larger pool of candidate sentences and excluded those that led to ambiguous or inconsistent results. For instance, the sentence “the lifeguard is rescuing the swimmer” did not work well because the roles of lifeguard and swimmer were not visually clearly distinguishable enough, and the verb rescue appeared too semantically complex for the models to reliably depict. As such, we prioritized simpler sentences with good visual recognizability and low semantic ambiguity. The exact prompts submitted to the models are explained below.

Procedure

Each of the ten sentences was presented to both AI models (DALL⋅E 3 and FLUX.1) in both active and passive constructions. Each model was asked to generate 100 images for each sentence and construction (repetitions), resulting in a total of 4,000 generated images (10 sentences × 2 syntax structures × 2 models x 100 repetitions). All generated images were then analyzed to determine the spatial positioning of the agent in each depiction.

We decided to prioritize control of the prompt over maintaining the experience of a layperson user working with the image generating AI as naturalistic as possible. In the case of FLUX.1, the script showed that the pictures were reliably generated based on the original prompt, without any visible modification on an intermediate step. Although it is not possible to rule out hidden changing of the prompt within the model, based on observable behavior and the failure to process non-English prompts meaningfully, we assume that FLUX.1 handled the English prompts verbatim. In contrast, in the case of DALL⋅E 3, we could see on the output of our script that the prompt had been visibly modified in many cases. When the changes significantly altered the syntactic structure or semantics, we excluded the resulting image and generated a new image as a replacement using the original prompt. All excluded and replaced prompts are documented in the publicly available dataset (https://figshare.com/projects/Human_asymmetries_in_AI_art/259556). This approach ensured that both models received as similar inputs as possible, allowing us to make meaningful comparisons. An alternative approach would have been to retain the altered prompts as internally changed by DALL⋅E 3, thereby more closely simulating typical user interactions and the kind of images actually going from average users into the public space (ecological validity). However, since only a small portion of prompts (38 out of 4,000) required replacement, we do not expect this choice to significantly affect the overall outcomes.

Data generation

The scripts used to access the APIs for both FLUX.1 (via Hyperbolic) and DALL⋅E 3 (via OpenAI) are available in the publicly available dataset (https://figshare.com/projects/Human_asymmetries_in_AI_art/259556). For Hyperbolic (FLUX.1), we used the prompt format “A simple sketch of: [sentence]” and generated 100 square images (1024×1024 px) per sentence without any complications or need for prompt modification. The images were stored automatically in a designated local directory and are made available as part of the publicly available dataset. An example of a prompt and some generated images can be seen in Fig 2.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. An example of data generation with FLUX.1.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326729.g002

For DALL⋅E 3, we included an additional system message, as recommended by OpenAI on their Website, to discourage prompt rewriting: “I NEED to test how the tool works with extremely simple prompts and syntax. DO NOT add any detail or alter the prompt, just use it exactly AS-IS: ‘A simple sketch of: [sentence]’.” This system prompt was supposed to prevent changes in our prompt. However, this approach did not work as described on the OpenAI website and the model frequently changed our original prompts. The pragmatic solution was to use the same prompt and procedure as with FLUX (100 iterations and output of square 1024 x 1024 px pictures). Since DALL⋅E 3 frequently altered the prompts, we took note of the changes and classified them into categories. We excluded those cases from the analysis and re-ran the code until enough pictures were generated where the prompts were not substantially altered. The most common issues with modified prompts were:

1. Policy-based rejections: Certain prompts involving two human characters were flagged as potentially violating OpenAI’s content policies, likely due to concerns about depicting physical contact or medical examination that could look obscene (e.g., “The boy is pushing the girl”, “The doctor is examining the patient”). In such cases, we re-ran the generation until 100 valid images were obtained.
2. Automatic demographic insertion: DALL⋅E 3 often modified the prompts to add a specific ethnicity or gender to characters. For example, “The doctor is examining the patient” was altered to “The South Asian female doctor is examining the Middle Eastern male patient.” Initially, we intended to exclude images generated from such modified prompts; however, since such modifications were common for certain prompts, we ultimately decided to retain the generated images, provided that the sentence structure and the intended agent–patient order were preserved in the modified prompt.
3. Syntactic rewriting: This leads to the next problem, namely that DALL⋅E 3 sometimes changed the prompts so drastically that the syntactic construction was altered (e.g., passive to active): For example “The girl is pushed by the boy” was once rewritten as “The boy, of Hispanic descent, is pushing the girl, of Caucasian descent”, converting the sentence from a passive item to an active construction. Such cases were excluded from the analysis and a new image generated again as a replacement. In other cases, DALL⋅E 3 added unwanted elaborated descriptions. For example the sentence “The prince is greeting the princess” in one case became an elaborate paragraph describing a royal scene, completely diverging from the intended minimal syntax: “A scene featuring a male figure of royal descent (the prince), who is warmly greeting a female figure also of royal descent (the princess). Both characters are extracted from the archetypical context of royalty and nobility. Display the profound reverence and courtesy that is a trademark of (but not reserved to) such encounters. The depiction should tap into the simplicity and understated elegance of a sketch, using soft, fluid lines to bring the characters and interaction to life.” The images based on significantly altered prompts were excluded from the analysis and regenerated because of the great divergence from the simple syntax and because the added details differed significantly from the intended prompt.
4. Accumulation of problems in one sentence pair: The sentence pair “The clown is entertaining the queen” and “The queen is entertained by the clown” had to be replaced entirely, since DALL⋅E 3 consistently changed the prompts in one of the ways described above: Rephrasing the characters (e.g., the clown became “a humorous entertainer”, “a performer dressed as a clown” or “a costumed performer, perhaps making comedic gestures”; while the queen became “a female ruler”, “a non-descript public figure” or “a public figure, perhaps sitting in an ornate chair”). In other cases, DALL⋅E 3 introduced complex descriptive scenes or distributed the words in the prompt into several separated sentences.
   Furthermore, this sentence pair frequently triggered policy violations. Because of all these problems, the system ran into errors after every five or so lines. We decided to use different protagonists for this sentence in DALL⋅E 3, but to keep the verb “entertain”, in order to make the comparison with the FLUX.1 images possible. We ended up substituting this sentence-pair with: “The puppy is entertaining the kitten” and “The kitten is entertained by the puppy.” While the verb entertain is somewhat semantically unusual for these protagonists, the sentence structure remained simple, and the characters avoided the problematic associations seen with clown and queen.

An example of data generation with DALL⋅E 3 can be seen in Fig 3.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. An example of data generation with DALL⋅E 3.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326729.g003

Data coding

Each image was annotated according to four variables:

1. Model (categorical: FLUX.1 or DALL⋅E 3),
2. Sentence (categorical: one of 10 semantically distinct stimuli),
3. Syntax (binary: active or passive),
4. Agent position (binary or categorical, describing spatial placement of the agent relative to the patient).

The independent variables are (1) the AI model that generated the image, (2) the semantic content of the sentence (an interaction between two animate entities, e.g. dog-observe-goat.) and (3) syntax (differentiating active (the dog observes the goat) and passive voice (the goat is observed by the dog). The dependent variable is the spatial position of the agent with regard to the other named figure. Agent position was coded as follows:

• Left (0): The agent is to the left of the other entity.
• Right (1): The agent is to the right of the other entity.
• Other (2): Both figures are present and recognizable, but their spatial relationship is neither left nor right. For example, one figure is above or in front of the other from the viewer’s perspective.
• Incorrect (3): The image does not reflect the stimulus prompt. Either because only one figure is shown, the figures are unrecognizable, the scene depicts a different action than what was prompted, or it depicts figures differently than in the prompt (e.g., two boys instead of a boy and a girl).

Depending on the analysis, agent position could be a binary variable (“left” or “right”, excluding “other” and “incorrect” from the analysis) or a categorical one with four values (left, right, other and incorrect). The resulting data was structured in a dataset comprising the independent and dependent variables described above.

Coding of the images was conducted manually. To ensure reliability, a subset of 800 images was coded independently by two raters, considering the most complex four-way coding system: Left, right, other and incorrect. Fig 4 shows examples of real images in the corpus and how they were coded. Inter-coder agreement was high: The two independent raters achieved an observed agreement of 94.88% (759 of 800 observations), substantially exceeding the agreement expected by chance (44.52%). The resulting Cohen’s Kappa was 0.908 (SE = 0.014), indicating excellent reliability[37], with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 0.881 to 0.934. A weighted Kappa, which penalizes more heavily disagreements from categories that are further apart, yielded a similarly high value of 0.873, further confirming the robustness of the coding procedure.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 4. Real examples of generated images coded according to four categories: Agent (the dog) placement on the left (of the other figure), other placements (neither left nor right), incorrectly generated images and agent placement on the right (of the goat).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326729.g004

Data clustering

The dataset is hierarchically structured in four levels of clustering. Observations (i.e., the individual drawings) are nested within progressively broader categorical groupings based on sentence content, syntactic structure, and AI model.

1. The two AI models serve as distinct, non-overlapping groups, each generating images independently. The variable “model” (with two levels: FLUX and DALL⋅E 3) accounts for potential differences between these AI models. We expect the models to behave differently in how they place the agent.
2. Since each of the ten sentences contains different semantic content, variability across sentences is also expected.
3. Each sentence was realized in two syntactic variants—active (syntax = 0) and passive (syntax = 1). Thus, each AI model generates images for both syntactic structures across all sentences.

In summary, for each unique combination of model, sentence, and syntax, each AI model generated 100 images, resulting in 400 images per sentence (100 images × 2 syntax structures × 2 models).

Descriptive results

The results regarding the spatial placement of the agent in the images generated by the AI models are summarized in Table 2, and visually presented in Fig 5.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 5. Visualization of the results.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326729.g005

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Distribution of agent positioning by model and syntax.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326729.t002

Fig 5 illustrates agent positioning across all images, organized by AI model and syntax of the prompt-sentence (sentence voice). Both Fig 5 and Table 2 include all images generated from critical stimuli, including those in which the agent was positioned in a location other than to the left or right of the patient (coded as “other”) as well as those with incorrect content (coded as “incorrect”).

Statistical analysis

We conducted statistical analyses to examine patterns in agent positioning as a function of sentence structure and AI model. Mixed-effects models were employed to assess whether agent position was systematically influenced by syntactic form (active vs. passive) and AI model (FLUX.1 vs. DALL⋅E 3). Mixed-effects modeling was chosen because it appropriately accounts for the hierarchical structure of the data and within-cluster dependencies. In our dataset, individual observations (images) are not fully independent, as they are grouped by sentence stimulus. To account for this, we included a random intercept for sentence. Syntax and model were entered as fixed effects. Images in which the agent was not positioned to the left or right of the other figure (coded as ‘other’) or in which the agent was missing or incorrectly assigned (coded as ‘incorrect’) were excluded from the binary logistic model and subsequently included in a separate multinomial model. Accordingly, we fitted two models to analyze agent positioning. First, a binary logistic mixed-effects model was used to predict leftward agent placement (). Second, a multinomial logistic regression model () was applied to the full set of agent placement outcomes, including non-binary positions.

Mixed-effects logistic regression model

To examine whether agent placement in AI-generated images is systematically influenced by sentence syntax and the language model used, we fitted a mixed-effects logistic regression model. The binary outcome variable was agent position (0 = left, 1 = right). Incorrect drawings or drawings with other agent positions were excluded. The fixed effects were syntax (active vs. passive), model (FLUX vs. DALL⋅E 3), and their interaction. Sentence was modeled as a random intercept to account for item-level variability. The model was fitted using the glmer() function from the lme4 package (version 1.1-37; R version 4.5.1, [38]), with a binomial link function.

Model fit statistics are reported in Table 3, indicating an AIC of 4695.8 and a log-likelihood of -2342.9. Scaled residuals ranged between -1.89 and 2.04, suggesting an acceptable model fit.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 3. Model fit statistics and scaled residuals for the agent position model.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326729.t003

Table 4 summarizes the random effects. Including a random intercept for sentence (variance = 0.079) accounting for item-level variability. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was 0.02, indicating that only 2% of the variance in agent placement was attributable to sentence-level differences.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 4. Random effects of agent position model.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326729.t004

Table 5 displays the fixed-effect estimates. There was a significant main effect of the variable syntax: passive sentences were more likely to place the agent on the right compared to active sentences (OR = 2.83, 95% CI = [2.34, 3.43], p < .001). This suggests that passive constructions strongly influence spatial representation. The main effect of the variable model was not significant (OR = 0.95, 95% CI = [0.78, 1.17], p = 0.632), indicating no overall difference in agent placement between FLUX and DALL⋅E 3.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 5. Fixed effects estimates for agent position model.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0326729.t005

A significant interaction between the variables model and syntax (OR = 2.25, 95% CI = [1.71, 2.97], p < .001) showed that the impact of syntax on agent positioning differed across models, with FLUX exhibiting a stronger leftward bias in active constructions than DALL⋅E 3, whereas in passive constructions both models showed a similarly strong rightward bias.

The marginal R² was 0.150, indicating that the fixed effects explained 15% of the variance in agent placement. The conditional R² was 0.170, suggesting that the full model (including random effects) explained 17% of the variance. These values were computed using the r.squaredGLMM() function from the MuMIn package.

These findings indicate that sentence syntax has a robust influence on spatial representation in AI-generated images, with passive constructions leading to more frequent rightward agent placement. Although both AI models responded to syntactic cues, DALL⋅E 3 exhibited a stronger syntactic bias than FLUX. Random intercepts for sentence accounted for minimal additional variance, suggesting that semantic effects were observable but small, and that the observed effects were primarily driven by syntax and model differences.

Complementary insights of the two models

To provide an initial overview of the data patterns, we first summarize the descriptive trends in agent positioning across models and syntactic conditions prior to statistical analysis. For DALL⋅E 3, agent placement shows a strong rightward asymetry in passive sentences, whereas in active sentences the placement of the agent is comparatively balanced, with no clear right or left preference. FLUX, in comparison, shows pronounced asymmetries in both conditions: agents are disproportionally positioned on the right in passive sentences and on the left in active sentences. This pattern suggests that DALL⋅E 3 displays only weak sensitivity to syntactic voice in spatial agent positioning, whereas FLUX systematically adjusts placement according to sentence structure. While both AI-models show some left–right reversal between active and passive constructions, the effect substantially stronger for FLUX, indicating a higher sensitivity for syntactic structure. DALL⋅E 3 exhibits a mild shift rather than a categorical change, implying limited syntactic sensitivity in how it maps agent roles onto spatial layouts.

The binary mixed-effects logistic regression and the multinomial regression model offer complementary insights. The mixed-effects model focused on a reduced dataset that excluded ambiguous or incorrect outputs, yielding a cleaner estimate of how syntax and model interact to affect left–right positioning. By including a random intercept for sentence, it accounted for item-level variability and provided robust inference within the binary coding scheme. The multinomial model, in contrast, incorporated all four observed outcomes (left, right, other, incorrect), allowing us to examine not only canonical positioning but also atypical or error-prone outputs. Because this model lacked random effects and assumed independence, its p-values should be interpreted with caution, particularly for the underrepresented “other” category.

The binary model confirmed a strong syntactic effect, showing that passive constructions increased the likelihood of rightward placement. The multinomial model reaffirmed this finding and additionally highlighted model-specific differences in the likelihood of generating “other” or incorrect outputs. Together, the models show that syntax robustly shifts agent placement to the right, while model architecture modulates the frequency of unconventional outcomes.

We report AIC values for transparency, but stress that they are not directly comparable: the two models are fitted to different outcome structures (binary vs. multinomial) and rely on distinct likelihood functions. The more meaningful contrast lies in their research focus: the binary model provides controlled inference on canonical left–right placement, whereas the multinomial model offers a descriptive account of the full distribution of outcomes. Although the multinomial model explained only a modest proportion of variance, such values are common in categorical behavioral data, and the observed syntactic effects remain theoretically meaningful.

In summary, the binary model isolates predictors of canonical left–right positioning with strong statistical control, while the multinomial model captures the full distribution of outcomes, including errors and atypical placements. Despite their methodological differences, both approaches converge on the same key finding: syntactic structure strongly influences agent positioning, with passive constructions driving rightward placement, and the two AI systems differing in the strength and consistency of this effect.

Limitations

Despite the significant effects observed for syntax and AI model in both analyses, the explained variance was relatively low, as reflected by the marginal R² of 0.15 and pseudo-R² of 0.17 in the mixed-effects model. These values indicate that only a small portion of the variability in agent positioning can be attributed to the fixed and random effects included in the model. Similarly, the multinomial model, while descriptive of outcome patterns, did not report variance explained, and likely shares this limitation due to its simplified structure and lack of control for clustering. Low R² values are not uncommon in behavioral data, especially when modeling outputs from large AI systems that integrate complex and opaque generative processes. Nonetheless, the limited explanatory power of our models suggests that additional factors (such as sentence semantics, latent model biases, or training data artifacts) likely influence agent positioning but were not captured in the present analysis. Furthermore, the observed effects, though statistically significant, may only account for broad tendencies rather than strong, deterministic shifts. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted as indicative of probabilistic patterns rather than precise predictive mechanisms. Future work might improve model fit by incorporating richer semantic predictors, image-based features, or more fine-grained representations of AI architecture and training parameters. Additionally, hierarchical modeling frameworks that allow for more flexible random structures could offer better insight into sentence-level variability and dependencies across stimuli.

Another indicator of model limitations is the relatively high frequency of semantically wrong responses (cases in which the model drew something other than the prompt), coded in this database as “incorrect”. In both models, these rates exceeded those found in human data, highlighting that even cutting-edge AI still struggles to interpret and visualize prompts reliably. Since these two models are not behaving the same, we have to be careful to not overgeneralize our results to other AI models not yet studied.

Despite these limitations, the statistical models presented here offer meaningful and theoretically grounded insights into how linguistic structure and AI architecture jointly shape spatial representation in image generation. The observed effects of syntax were consistent across modeling approaches and robust in direction and magnitude, aligning with known cognitive and linguistic patterns in human spatial encoding. The inclusion of both binary and multinomial analyses provided complementary perspectives: one offering statistical rigor and controlled inference, and the other capturing a broader range of outcomes, including deviations and errors, which are essential for understanding the full behavioral spectrum of generative AI systems. Thus, even in the presence of unexplained variance, the current findings contribute valuable evidence for systematic, linguistically driven behavior in AI-generated visual outputs and lay the groundwork for more fine-grained, multimodal modeling in future work.

Implications

Our findings point to broader implications regarding cultural and cognitive biases in AI-generated visual content. While the models were not explicitly trained to produce spatial asymmetries linked to reading direction, their output shows traces of such biases. This suggest that the training data, overwhelmingly drawn from Western sources, implicitly shaped these behaviors. The piloting before the main data collection for this study showed that when prompted in non-English languages, the models either defaulted to English (DALL⋅E 3) or failed to interpret the prompt correctly (FLUX), indicating a strong anglocentric orientation in their current capabilities.

This raises a critical concern: as AI-generated imagery becomes increasingly ubiquitous online, it may amplify and normalize Western-specific visual conventions, subtly diminishing culturally diverse patterns of representation. As previous research has shown, spatial biases differ across languages and cultures [1,12,13]. The homogenizing influence of AI could thus erode forms of cognitive diversity that are currently underrepresented but no less important.

There is a growing awareness of visible biases in AI art, such as the under-representation of non-normative body types or the stereotyping of ethnic identities. Our study shows that more subtle cognitive and/or linguistic features such as the Spatial Agency Bias can also shift under AI influence. Because these features operate below conscious awareness, we may not even notice what is being lost. Our study highlights that if one of the expectations of AI-generated art is to mimic human art, it does not (yet) do so accurately. More precisely, in its current form, AI-generated images align more closely with the biases found in Western artistic traditions, rather than reflecting the diversity and variability that characterize human creative expression as a whole.