Figure 1. What six label studies found
Across these six studies, labels most often changed where people looked or how easy a work felt to make sense of, and liking or interest changed less often. Label effects vary with the text, the artwork, the viewer, the setting, and the outcome measured, and they cannot be pooled into one score. How to read this: each row is one study, so read across to see what the label changed, what it did not, and what the study cannot show.
| Source | Who took part and what they saw | What text viewers got | What changed | What did not change, or was not measured | What this does not show |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
- Does not prove
- The matrix does not establish label quality, one correct interpretation, durable learning, visitor agreement, or artistic value.
- 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.
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.