Figure 1. The label is a lens, not a verdict
Label effects vary by text, artwork, viewer, setting, and measured outcome, and cannot be pooled into one score.
| Source | Viewer and artwork denominator | Text intervention | What changed | What did not change or was not measured | Non-proof |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S1 | 30 viewers; 30 works, 15 abstract and 15 figurative | Title, aesthetic-process context, or semantic context | Semantic context increased abstract understanding and salient-region exploration; aesthetic-process context reduced overall looking time for abstract work | Abstract appreciation was lower for aesthetic-process than semantic context, but not reliably different from title-only context | No universal label effect or correct meaning |
| S2 | 214 viewers; 31 Pollock works in Experiment 1 | None, artist, technique, or combined information | Small liking and interest increase for combined information among lower-art-experience viewers | No museum behavior; order was fixed | No biography-only or large general effect |
| S3 | 30 viewers; eight museum paintings; 20 experimental and 10 control | Essential then descriptive labels, or essential labels twice | Viewing, described-area gaze, perceived complexity, comprehensibility, positive emotion, pupil, and electrodermal measures | Appreciation, interest, curiosity, and heart rate did not significantly change | More looking is not more liking |
| S4 | 60 enrolled viewers; 49 usable physiological records; eight digital paintings | Essential versus descriptive labels across sessions | Comprehensibility, complexity, and emotional measures | Liking and interest did not significantly change | Digital viewing is not a museum visit |
| S5 | 127 viewers; 40 contemporary works | No title, consistent title, or inconsistent title | Several gaze measures and their timing | Museum behavior and durable interpretation were not measured | Title alignment is not truth |
| S6 | 52 viewers across two experiments; 30 abstract works | Broad categorical title before viewing | Gaze shifted from early scanning to later survey over time | Label did not reliably change the measured gaze pattern; liking and understanding were not measured | Broad-label nulls do not cover rich labels |
- Scope
- Six peer-reviewed experiments published from 2022 through 2025 that vary label or title context and measure visual-art responses
- Units
- Study-specific viewer and artwork counts with direction-of-result descriptions; no pooled effect size
- Denominator
- One row per study setting; viewers, artworks, conditions, and physiological exclusions remain study-specific
- Date
- Sources published 2022-03-04 through 2025-06-12 and observed 2026-09-02
- Transformation
- Outcomes are paraphrased as changed, no reliable change, or not measured; no meta-analysis, normalization, or cross-study ranking
- Uncertainty
- Settings, viewers, works, text interventions, exposure sequences, and measures differ substantially
- Limitations
- The 2026 field study is discussed in prose but excluded from the matrix because its naturalistic, bundled between-condition intervention and selected 80-participant subset are not directly comparable to the six controlled rows.
- Does not prove
- The matrix does not establish label quality, one correct interpretation, durable learning, visitor agreement, or artistic value.
Sources
- How does contextual information affect aesthetic appreciation and gaze behavior in figurative and abstract artwork?. Journal of Vision. Published 2024-11-08; observed 2026-09-02.
- The impact of contextual information on aesthetic engagement of artworks. Scientific Reports. Published 2023-03-15; observed 2026-09-02.
- Psychophysiological and behavioral responses to descriptive labels in modern art museums. PLOS ONE. Published 2023-05-03; observed 2026-09-02.
- Effectiveness of labels in digital art experience: psychophysiological and behavioral evidence. Frontiers in Psychology. Published 2024-07-01; observed 2026-09-02.
- Titles and Semantic Violations Affect Eye Movements When Viewing Contemporary Paintings. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. Published 2022-03-04; observed 2026-09-02.
- Viewing of abstract art follows a gist to survey gaze pattern over time regardless of broad categorical titles. PLOS ONE. Published 2025-06-12; observed 2026-09-02.