| Title |
How Art Changes Your Brain: Differential Effects of Visual Art Production and Cognitive Art Evaluation on Functional Brain Connectivity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0101035 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne Bolwerk, Jessica Mack-Andrick, Frieder R. Lang, Arnd Dörfler, Christian Maihöfner |
| Abstract |
Visual art represents a powerful resource for mental and physical well-being. However, little is known about the underlying effects at a neural level. A critical question is whether visual art production and cognitive art evaluation may have different effects on the functional interplay of the brain's default mode network (DMN). We used fMRI to investigate the DMN of a non-clinical sample of 28 post-retirement adults (63.71 years ±3.52 SD) before (T0) and after (T1) weekly participation in two different 10-week-long art interventions. Participants were randomly assigned to groups stratified by gender and age. In the visual art production group 14 participants actively produced art in an art class. In the cognitive art evaluation group 14 participants cognitively evaluated artwork at a museum. The DMN of both groups was identified by using a seed voxel correlation analysis (SCA) in the posterior cingulated cortex (PCC/preCUN). An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was employed to relate fMRI data to psychological resilience which was measured with the brief German counterpart of the Resilience Scale (RS-11). We observed that the visual art production group showed greater spatial improvement in functional connectivity of PCC/preCUN to the frontal and parietal cortices from T0 to T1 than the cognitive art evaluation group. Moreover, the functional connectivity in the visual art production group was related to psychological resilience (i.e., stress resistance) at T1. Our findings are the first to demonstrate the neural effects of visual art production on psychological resilience in adulthood. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 131 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 42 | 32% |
| United Kingdom | 14 | 11% |
| Australia | 6 | 5% |
| Mexico | 4 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 2% |
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| Turkey | 2 | 2% |
| Ukraine | 1 | <1% |
| Vietnam | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 48 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 109 | 83% |
| Scientists | 14 | 11% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 363 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 354 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 73 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 50 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 43 | 12% |
| Researcher | 35 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 22 | 6% |
| Other | 63 | 17% |
| Unknown | 77 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 87 | 24% |
| Arts and Humanities | 39 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 33 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 27 | 7% |
| Other | 67 | 18% |
| Unknown | 77 | 21% |