Next Article in Journal
A Riemannian Geometry Theory of Synergy Selection for Visually-Guided Movement
Previous Article in Journal
Attention Trade-Off for Localization and Saccadic Remapping
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Interpretation of E-Motions in Faces and Bodies Derived from Static Artworks by Individuals with High Functioning Autistic Spectrum
 
 
Correction to Vision 2020, 4(1), 10.
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Correction

Correction: Mather, G. Aesthetic Image Statistics Vary with Artistic Genre. Vision 2020, 4, 10

School of Psychology, University of Lincoln, Lincoln LN6 7AY, UK
Vision 2021, 5(2), 25; https://doi.org/10.3390/vision5020025
Submission received: 16 April 2021 / Accepted: 26 April 2021 / Published: 24 May 2021
The author wishes to make the following corrections to the paper [1]:
During additional data analyses after publication of the manuscript, the author found an error in the Matlab script that calculated the coefficients of determination (Cd) between individual image statistics and aesthetic ratings of the image sets. Due to this error, a small subset of the images in each set was excluded from the calculation. The correct values for Table 1 are shown below.
Correlations are reported as coefficients of determination, Cd, calculated as (r2 × 100). Values in bold are significant at the 5% level or higher, after adjustment for the false discovery rate.
References to the relevant Cd values in the “3. Results” section should be changed to reflect the corrected values. For example, the correct Cd values for the entire set of images (top row in the table) are much lower than those originally reported. For instance, for SL(L), the correct value is 0.16, not 22.49 as reported.
The author would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused to readers by these changes. The errors do not significantly change the conclusions of the paper. The corrected Cd values are almost all lower than those originally reported, reinforcing the points already made that (1) individual image statistics generally explain relatively little of the variance in aesthetic ratings; and (2) multi-component partial least squares regression models account for far more variance than single-component correlations.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Reference

  1. Mather, G. Aesthetic image statistics vary with artistic genre. Vision 2020, 4, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Table 1. Summary of correlations between image statistics (columns) and aesthetic ratings of paintings in different genres (rows).
Table 1. Summary of correlations between image statistics (columns) and aesthetic ratings of paintings in different genres (rows).
Genre.n ImageSL(L)SL(a)SL(b)FD(L)FD(a)FD(b)EN(L)EN(a)EN(b)
All art4760.161.550.010.30.560.310.091.470.05
Abstract8000.323.630.30.220.470.352.43.17
Landscape510.847.545.080.381.4309.260.027
People1310.030.520.590.30.2500.035.050.86
Still Life295.150.210.595.670.162.591.180.167.01
Portrait1335.220.50.730.113.941.845.7203.65
Nude1445.670.0110.781.910.127.160.327.552.43
Animals174.417.122.0911.45.718.570.570.790.48
Built165.932.2632.12.280.090.20.754.251.8
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mather, G. Correction: Mather, G. Aesthetic Image Statistics Vary with Artistic Genre. Vision 2020, 4, 10. Vision 2021, 5, 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision5020025

AMA Style

Mather G. Correction: Mather, G. Aesthetic Image Statistics Vary with Artistic Genre. Vision 2020, 4, 10. Vision. 2021; 5(2):25. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision5020025

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mather, George. 2021. "Correction: Mather, G. Aesthetic Image Statistics Vary with Artistic Genre. Vision 2020, 4, 10" Vision 5, no. 2: 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision5020025

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop