美感評估通常被認為是經過多個階段的判斷歷程，儘管美感的喜好與情緒效價（valence）在概念上是不同的維度——前者反映偏好，後者反映情緒的正負向——但這兩種歷程的處理機制會互相影響。過去的研究也指出，物理距離（physical distance）與心理距離（psychological distance）都會影響情緒歷程：心理距離通常與觀賞藝術時的抽離感相關，物理距離則是指對實際接近程度的感知，而不論縮短心理或物理距離皆能增強情緒反應。換句話說，較近的距離會增加情緒反應，較遠的距離則會減弱情緒反應。基於過往的這些發現，本研究旨在釐清以下兩個議題：第一，視覺圖片所引發的情緒正負向是否會影響受試者對其美感的評估；第二，改變視覺圖片的心理距離和物理距離，是否會以和調節情緒歷程相類似的方式，同樣也調節美感評估。具體而言，我們檢視了情緒正負向以及心理、物理距離如何影響對視覺圖片的喜好，並探討這兩種距離對於美感評估的效應是反映出相同還是不同的機制。 在實驗一中，我們分別從公開圖片資料庫 OASIS 和 VAPS 中選取具情緒正負向的照片與藝術圖片，以此操弄刺激材料的心理距離。此外，我們利用三種移動情境（靠近、靜止、遠離）來操弄刺激材料的物理距離，並讓受試者對每張圖片的喜好度、情緒正負向和喚醒度進行評分。實驗二的所有材料與操弄皆與實驗一相同，唯一不同的是，物理距離的操弄調整為呈現不同大小（大、中、小）的靜止影像，以避免圖片在移動和靜止時引發不同的喚醒度。另外，在實驗二中，除了收集主觀評分，也同步記錄了視覺圖片所誘發的事件相關電位（ERP）。在實驗三與實驗四中，為了確保不同心理距離的圖片具有相同的語義內容，我們採用了來自 OASIS 的照片，並利用人工智慧工具將其轉化為藝術作品風格的對應圖片。實驗三與實驗四皆收集了參與者對圖片的喜好程度、情緒正負向和喚醒度的主觀評分，而在實驗四中也同步進行了 ERP 記錄。 本研究四個實驗的結果，揭示了視覺圖片的情緒正負向、心理和物理距離之間的交互作用對美感評估的貢獻。整體來說，以線性混合效應模型（linear mixed-effects model， LMM）分析所有實驗的主觀評分時，發現情緒正負向評分與美感喜好度之間存在強烈的正相關。此外，在實驗三中將照片與藝術圖片的內容控制後，藝術圖片所引發的情緒正負向程度與美感評分之間的相關性比照片更為減弱，這顯示出藝術具有的緩衝效應。實驗二與實驗四的腦電波資料，進一步顯示了本研究的各項操弄在不同時間窗口內的效果。在被認為是反映早期視覺注意力的 N1 階段，受試者越喜歡的圖片通常引發越大的N1波幅，此一相關結果僅未在實驗四中的大張照片條件下被觀察到，很可能是因為物理距離近的大照片吸引了更高的注意力。另一方面，在作為注意力指標的 P2 階段，受試者越喜歡的圖片通常引發越小的Ｐ2波幅(儘管這個負相關未達到統計上的顯著水準)，但這樣的趨勢在評估實驗四的負向藝術圖片的美感時有所減弱，甚至轉為正相關。最後，在晚期的LPP階段，當視覺圖片所引發的情緒正負向與受試者的美感評估一致時(即正向圖片被評為喜歡、負向圖片被評為不喜歡)，照片和藝術圖片所引發的LPP成分皆較強，而當兩者不一致時則較弱，這顯示出情緒與美感評估在晚期動機上的整合。 總結來說，本研究在行為層面上的結果顯示心理距離與情緒正負向共同調控了對視覺圖片的喜好程度，支持負向藝術圖片的心理距離所帶來的緩衝效應。在神經層面上，來自腦電波的證據顯示這種緩衝效應在視覺圖片的早期處理階段就已經出現。腦電波的實驗結果也表明，心理距離與物理距離之於美感評估的效應，可能並非源於相同的潛在機制；心理距離反映出在處理真實照片與藝術圖片時兩種不同的觀賞情境，而物理距離則反映了對視覺距離的感知。本研究的發現，凸顯情緒正負向和距離對美感評估的重要貢獻，也為未來神經美學的研究帶來啟發。;Aesthetic evaluation is generally regarded as an evaluative judgment that emerges through multiple stages of processing. Although aesthetic liking and emotional valence are considered conceptually distinct dimensions—one reflecting preference and the other reflecting emotional positivity/negativity—they are also believed to unfold over time and interact with one another. Previous research has further suggested that both physical and psychological distance shapes emotional experience. Psychological distance has often been associated with the detached mode of viewing visual art， whereas physical distance refers to the direct perception of visual proximity of a stimulus. Studies have shown that reducing either psychological or physical distance enhances emotional responses: smaller distance increases affective intensity and motivational engagement， whereas larger distance attenuates emotional reactivity. Building on these findings， the present study aimed to determine 1) whether emotional valence contributes to aesthetic evaluation of visual images， and 2) whether perceived psychological and physical distance of visual images modulates aesthetic evaluation in a similar way as it modulates emotional valence. Specifically， we examined how emotional valence and psychological/physical distance influence liking responses to visual images， and whether the effects of the two kinds of distance reflect common or distinct mechanisms. In Experiment 1， photographs and artworks with positive and negative emotional valence selected from open databases OASIS and VAPS， respectively， were used to manipulate psychological distance. In addition， three movement conditions (toward， static， and away) were used to manipulate physical distance. Participants rated each image in terms of liking， valence， and arousal. In Experiment 2， all the materials and manipulations remained the same as in Experiment 1， except that the manipulation of physical distance was achieved by presenting static images in different image sizes (large， medium， and small) to control for different arousal levels induced by movement of the stimuli. Simultaneous event-related potentials (ERPs) elicited by visual images were recorded before collection of subjective ratings. In Experiment 3 and 4， real-life photographs from OASIS and their artwork-like counterparts created by a tool with artificial intelligence were employed to ensure that stimuli with different psychological distance have identical semantic contents. Subjective ratings of the liking， valence， and arousal of individual stimuli were collected in both Experiment 3 and 4， while simultaneous ERP recordings were also collected in Experiment 4. The findings from all four experiments elucidated the contributions from emotional valence， distance， and their interaction to aesthetic evaluation. Linear mixed-effects model analyses on the subjective ratings from all experiments showed strong positive correlation between valence ratings and aesthetic liking. Moreover， in Experiment 3 after equating semantic contents between photographs and artworks， the association between emotional valence and aesthetic ratings was more attenuated for the latter than for the former， suggesting a buffering effect created by psychological distance in artworks. The ERP results from Experiment 2 and 4 further revealed the effects of our manipulations in different time windows. At the N1 stage whose ERP might reflect early visual attention， images with higher liking ratings tended to elicit greater N1 magnitudes， except for large photographs in Experiment 4， which might attract attention due to close physical distance. Critically， the N1 amplitudes elicited by negative artworks in Experiment 4 seemed to be attenuated， providing evidence for a buffering effect of psychological distance. At the P2 stage， the index of attention was negatively (albeit insignificantly) correlated with aesthetic values particularly in Experiment 4， but the trend was attenuated or even reversed for negative artworks. At the LPP stage， the ERP components associated with both photographs and artworks were stronger when emotional valence and aesthetic evaluation were congruent but weaker when they were incongruent， suggesting an integration of emotion and aesthetic values at the late motivational level. In summary， at the behavioral level， the present results showed that psychological distance and emotional valence jointly modulated liking， indicating a buffering effect of psychological distance particularly on negative artworks. At the neural level， ERP findings further demonstrated that this buffering effect emerged at an early stage of processing. Furthermore， the ERP results suggest that the effects of psychological distance and physical distance may not result from the same underlying mechanism in aesthetic processing. Psychological distance may be better conceptualized as reflecting two qualitatively distinct viewing contexts—realistic and artistic—whereas physical distance appears to directly reflect perception of visual proximity. These findings from the present study not only highlight important contributing factors to aesthetic evaluation， but also provide insights for future research on neuroaesthetics.
