Does Beauty Lie in the Face?

As the saying goes, ‘beauty is only skin-deep’. However, many times we cannot help but fall for an attractive face: the first impressions of a person do create an impact on our minds. What is considered ‘beautiful’? Are there features of faces across cultures that people find more attractive?

Facial Symmetry

According to researchers, a face is perceived as beautiful if it is symmetrical and represents the average traits of the population. Our eyes recognize symmetrical faces with similar proportions on left and right side of the face. The quest to define a golden standard for a facial feature - for example, the size or shape of the eyes or lips - dates back to antiquity. The Ancient Greeks believed that the essence of beauty lied in the golden ratio of 1:1.618. More recently, researchers have discovered that people find a female face attractive when the distance between the eyes is just under half of the width of the face. They also found that the eye-to-mouth distance should be just over one-third of the height of the face. These two ratios have been termed as the ‘golden ratios’, which correspond to that of an average face [1].

Example of faces with different length and width ratios. Boxes mark the optimal length and width ratios that people found attractive [1].

 

What is the reason behind the choice of such features? This can be explained by two existing theories: one is an evolutionary aspect where humans tend to choose healthy mates with physical characteristics resembling the average population. The other is a cognitive aspect where, due to repeated exposures, we tend to prefer prototypical facial features which are easier to process.

Golden ratio: can beauty be quantified? 

So, are facial preferences based on nature or nurture? Do we have a preference for certain faces as babies? The answer seems to be: yes! Babies of 2-3 months tend to look at attractive faces for longer time than unattractive ones [2]. The perception of attractiveness is also affected by familiarity: Hazda people, hunter-gatherers from Tanzania who have not been exposed to European faces, found the average face of a Hazda more attractive than an European face [3]. But spatial aspects of the face are not the only determinants of attractiveness - sexually dimorphic features like full lips and longer eyelashes also influence what people find attractive [1 ].

The Power of a Smile

A smile has more powerful influence on people’s perception than facial features or makeup, according to psychologists. People with genuine smiles were seen as healthier and more attractive by virtue of being optimistic and cheerful than people with blank expressions [4,5]. Thus, the secret to healthy appearance and being attractive? Smile!

For the evolutionary basis of beauty, check out Helge's article on page 5. Given the fact that there is an innate bias inside all of us towards 'beautiful' faces, it is even more important for us to think twice before making judgements on other people based just on their appearances!

How an average American woman will look like in 50 years
(Courtesy: National Geographic)

What will future humans look like?

It has been predicted that globalization, cultural diffusion and interracial marriages will eventually homogenize the human population, averaging out more and more people's traits such as hair, eye color, facial features, and eye shape. Dominant traits will be expressed more than recessive traits (which need not one but two copies of the gene to be expressed). In other words, we are going to become a huge amalgamated race!

by Aarti Swaminathan, PhD Student AG Schmitz

 [1] Pallett P.M, Link S, and Lee K. Vision Res. 2010.
 [2] Hoss R.A. and Langlois J.H. The Development of Face Processing in Infancy and Early Childhood: Current Perspectives. 2003.
 [3] Apicella C.L et al. Perception, 2007.
 [4] Golle et al. Cognition and Emotion, 2013
 [5] Jones A.L et al. Visual Cognition, 2017.

How Stress Gets Under Your Skin

With two square meters surface and 3.6 kg weight, the skin is the largest organ of the human body [1]. As first human organ to develop it represents the first line of communication within the womb. Some experts even call it the “social organ”. Culturally, skin defines our social standard of beauty. Youthful and smooth skin signals health and vitality [2].

The social pressure to be beautiful is used by global skincare markets, which make up a $121 billion industry [3]. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, around 15 million cosmetic procedures were performed in the United States in 2013, 13.4 million of which being minimally invasive including Botox injections and chemical peels [4], with experts predicting an upward trend for the future [5]. Out of all the money spent for beauty, skin products are at the top. Beauty-wise our skin seems to be the most valuable organ to us. After all, it is the first thing people see.

The Deeper Reasons for Skin Problems
Let’s face it! We are skincare addicts. We love the idea that we can just apply aloe vera, jojoba and some Q10 and look young and fresh. We may not know what these ingredients actually do or where they come from, but if the package says it’s anti-aging, it’s worth a try. These products, however, rather treat the symptoms than the cause. We elegantly overlook in our everyday lives that there are causes to our (skin) problems that we could treat if only we cared to look a bit deeper.
During embryonic development, skin cells and cells of the nervous system develop from the same embryonic tissue, the ectoderm [6]. The strong connection between brain and skin is thus not surprising. If you have ever blushed from embarrassment or itched from agitation, you’ve experienced a typical phenotype of the brain-skin-interaction.
A huge contributor of skin problems and diseases is chronic psychological stress. Contrary to common belief, your stress system is absolutely necessary and extremely beneficial to your health. It ensures survival in the face of danger. However, problems start occurring when this system is activated over a long period of time and stress has become chronic [7]. There are several ways in which chronic stress can influence your skin.

via flickr

Stress changes eating habits. Stress causes "emotional eating", which refers to eating high-carbohydrate, high-calorie foods with low nutritional value due to emotional stress. Such a diet can lead to acne and impure skin [8].

Stress reduces blood circulation in the skin. During stress, blood accumulates in vital organs providing them with oxygen and energy to allow the body a quick reaction to the stressor. As the skin is not life-saving in most threatening situations, it is less well irrigated and dries out quicker, making it dull and rough [9].

The negative effects of cortisol. Cortisol levels normally undergo daily oscillation with peak level in the early morning and lowest level around midnight. Under stress, these oscillations are impaired and significantly up-regulated cortisol reduces anti-inflammatory processes in the skin [10]. Furthermore, cortisol increases the skin’s oil production, which can exacerbate acne. Cortisol also inhibits the production of melatonin, a hormone important for the sleep-wake-cycle and a potential effective anti-skin aging compound [11].

Stress causes an increase in free radicals. Free radicals in high quantities attack the healthy skin cells and destroy their membrane. These cells quickly die, leading to saggy, wrinkly skin and more dark spots [11].

Stress speeds up the ageing process. Not only does stress and worrying provoke wrinkle causing facial expressions like frowning [9]. It also increases cortisol, which degrades collagen (for skin strength) and elastin fibers (for skin elasticity).

Skin conditions. Stress can also aggravate precedent skin disorders such as atopic dermatitis, herpes simplex, pruritus (itching) or psoriasis. Many people who suffer from chronic skin disorders report that their symptoms flare up when their stress levels are elevated [6].

The vicious cycle. The stress-related skin conditions can in turn cause psychological distress feeding in a vicious cycle of psychological stress and skin problems. It can be extremely difficult for affected people to break out of this cycle.

The brain and the skin are strongly connected

This is a lot of bad news for your skin. Does this mean everyone battling with blemished skin or wrinkles needs a therapist? Of course not. Not every skin problem or disease is necessarily stress-related. And there is an obvious flipside to all of this: positive experiences can be beneficial for your skin. An example of this is the famous “love glow”, which is the skin’s response to the release of oxytocin in the brain. Oxytocin is involved in social bonding such as between sexual partners or a mother and her child. It creates a feeling of deep attachment. Oxytocin is thought to reduce the body’s production of cortisol and inflammatory processes in the body that slow healing [12]. More oxytocin potentially leads to fewer skin irritation and may thereby promote the “love glow”.
It is important to recognize these strong interconnections between your brain and your skin, between your internal and external world. Keep in mind that any positive as well as any negative experiences can (quite literally) get under your skin.

By Alena Deuerlein, MSc Student Psychology/Interdisciplinary Neurosciences
Goethe University Frankfurt


[1] http://bit.ly/2nTUkuh
[2] http://bit.ly/2EgUy93
[3] http://prn.to/2B0PST4
[4] http://bit.ly/2EjfBYw
[5] http://bit.ly/2EUBr1y
[6] Shenefelt, Psychol Res Behav Manag, 2010; PMCID:PMC3218765
[7] Anderson, Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1998
[8] http://bit.ly/2G1wAuT
[9] http://bit.ly/2H2H12t
[10] Chen and Lyga, Inflamm Allergy Drug Targets, 2014; PMCID:PMC4082169
[11] Kleszczynski and Fischer, Dermatoendocrinol, 2012; DOI:10.4161/derm.22344[12] http://bit.ly/2EkrIEF

Beauty and the Art of Perception

Confucius once said wisely “Everything has beauty but not everyone sees it”. It is interesting how Confucius thought beauty is perceived: with the eyes. What are people's most common answers when asked about what beauty means to them? 

Initially, they think about physical attributes, especially of other humans. This probably is a consequence of the media’s focus on what a perfect body or face should look like. This especially seems to resonate with teenagers. Ideally, the older you get, the more beauty is also seen in subtle and, as many would probably agree, more valuable things of life. Beauty can mean a warm hot chocolate after a full day of skiing, the rewarding view from the top of a mountain after an energy-sapping five-hour hike or merely the joy a mother feels when she sees her child smile at her while going crazy on a trampoline. Beauty is conveyed by all different modes of perception: looking at something, but also touching, tasting or listening to it.

The “Aesthetic System”
In the early phase, research in neuroaesthetics restricted itself to visual perception. For example, scientists tried to assess the physical properties of human faces in order to find the basic neural mechanisms underlying our brain's decision that something is beautiful [1, 2]. Key features are average, symmetry and hormones. The first factor that contributes to beauty is average, because it harbors greater genetic diversity and adaptability to the environment. The second factor is symmetry, because developmental abnormalities are often associated with asymmetry, while symmetry is an indicator for health. And the third factor are hormones, because high level of estrogen and testosterone play important roles in shaping features that people find attractive (when we confine ourselves to heterosexual norms).

Picture: By Hector Salazar

I personally think that these features are what describes attractiveness and are partly evolutionary pre-determinations of how we subconsciously choose our life partners. Anyway, let us have a look what happens in the brain: Attractive faces activate a network of areas that range from the back of our brain to the frontal lobes. An area called fusiform gyrus, which is part of our visual cortex and temporal lobe, as well as the lateral occipital complex in the back of the brain are activated. The fusiform gyrus is especially attuned to process faces, while the occipital complex is especially attuned to process objects. In addition, attractive faces activate parts of our reward and pleasure center located in the front and deep in the brain. These areas are the ventral striatum, the orbifrontal cortex and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex [3].

Beauty is in the brain of the beholder

Since the field of neuroaesthetics is a new but rapidly expanding area, recent studies cover also other art forms, like music and performing art [4], as well as other senses, like smell, taste, hearing and touch. One consistently activated region in response to beautiful stimuli in neuroimaging studies was the anterior insula [5]. This small neural area that sits deep within the lateral sulcus of the cerebral cortex is implicated in a wide range of subjective feelings based on interoception, from cigarette craving to maternal love and, as the term interoception implies, integrates bodily sensations. Since tasting a favorite meal, listening to Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 or looking at visually appealing art have all effects on the body, it is not surprising that a region that is meant to give feedback on how much an experience satisfies the physiological needs can also be part of an “aesthetic system” in the brain.

Things that Matter
Interestingly, the sense of beauty seems to require activation in the brain’s reward system. Thus, the brain’s output is a pleased feeling that we sense when we perceive beauty. Sadly, we choose quite often to be blind to beauty because of distraction, worry and daily stress. But it would be very beneficial for each of us to actively predispose ourselves to embrace beauty. Whatever it means for the individual, beauty means happiness at the end. And the good thing is, you decide what’s beautiful, because - if you allow me to adjust the popular saying - beauty is in the brain of the beholder.


[1] Rhodes, Annu. Rev. Psychol., 2006
[2] http://bit.ly/2lYvDJe
[3] Kocsor et. al, Socioaffect Neurosci Psychol, 2013
[4] Cinzia & Vittorio,Curr Opin Neurobiol, 2009
[5] http://bit.ly/2lYvDJe

by Anahita Poshtiban, PhD Student, AG Plested
This article originally appeared March 2018 in Vol 11, Issue 01, "Beauty and the Brain"

Introduction to Neuroaesthetics

Basics of Neuroaesthetics
The concept of aesthetics is about beauty. Neuroaesthetics is a discipline within cognitive neuroscience that is concerned with understanding the biological bases of aesthetic experiences. This means researchers in the field of neuroaethetics want to find out how the experience of art is processed in our brain. The term “neuroaesthetics” was introduced In 1999 by Semir Zeki, bringing together different scientific fields, such as psychology, neuroscience and human evolution [1]. Most of the research done within the past twenty years consists of functional imaging studies of the brain. These studies showed that visual works of art activate specific brain regions that are important for emotions and reward-related processes [2]. This might be an explanation why we can perceive art as beautiful. Neuroaesthetics is a growing discipline and broadens up. New approaches explore specific forms of art, like music, but some researchers are also interested in changes in aesthetic experience in disorders such as dementia [3].

The Association of Neuroaesthetics
The association of neuroaesthetics (AoN) is a platform aiming to cultivate the interdisciplinary efforts in the field of neuroaesthetics and to encourage a cooperation between arts and cognitive sciences. The AoN e.V. is a non-profit organization founded in 2008 in Berlin by neurosurgeon Alexander Abbushi in collaboration with the Charité and a group of leading international neuroscientists and curators from Paris, Munich and London. The association has organized a number of symposia and talk series, inviting both artists and neuroscientists for an interdisciplinary crosstalk. More information can be found on their website: http://aon.neurobureau.org.

http://aon.neurobureau.org/

The Science Part: Semir Zeki
Semir Zeki is Professor of Neuroaesthetics at UCL London and introduced the term “neuroaesthetics” as a neurobiological definition of art. His research focuses on the study of the visual brain, its organization and its functioning in health and in disease [4]. Within the last thirty years, he made many important findings for our understanding of the visual pathway [5,6]. More recently, he showed interest in the impact of visual arts on our brain. As we need our eyes to perceive the visual arts, his own groundwork may lead to a more profound understanding of aesthetic experience. Zeki started to investigate the experience of beauty derived from different emotions, such as sorrow and joy [7].

The Art Part: Mark Stephen Smith
Mark Stephen Smith is Associate Professor at Austin College in Sherman, Texas, but probably better known for his art. He is one example of a growing number of contemporary artists who create a convergence of science and paintings. His works explore fundamental visual analogies between neural functions and self-expression in abstract art. He tries to merge his interest in scientific processes with his dedication to abstract paintings. Smith describes his paintings as a “amalgamation of science, technology and my own hand”. Smith's work has been exhibited at many museums, including the Dallas Museum of Art and Grace Borgnicht Gallery in New York. His recent series of works is called “Quantum States” and is inspired by theoretical physics [8].

Criticism on Neuroaesthetics
Neuroaesthetics emerged to its own research field in the neurosciences. But critics say that the discipline of neuroscience, which looks at events in the brain of individual people and cannot do more than describe and analyze them, may be the wrong empirical science for understanding art [9]. A fundamental question occurs when studying the aesthetic experience of art and how it is processed in our brain. How to define art and beauty? Beauty is not a scientific concept and a universal accepted definition is missing. Aesthetic experience is partly a question of culture and circumstance, and not a fundamental quality of the brain [10]. Researchers in the field of neuroaesthetics try to answer the question of how we perceive art and its beauty. We will see if they overcome the critics and find the explanations.

by Nina Stöberl, MSc Student, MedNeuro
This article originally appeared March 2018 in Vol 11, Issue 01, "Beauty and the Brain"

[1] Bundgaard, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 2015
[2] O’Doherty, Curr Opin Neurobiol, 2014
[3] Silveri et al., J Alzheimers Dis, 2015
[4] http://bit.ly/2oQly4J
[5] Zeki, Nature, 1978
[6] Zeki, Nature, 1980
[7] Ishizu and Zeki, Hum Brain Mapp, 2017
[8] http://bit.ly/2I3fKxj
[9] Conway and Rehding, PLoS Biology, 2013
[10] http://go.nature.com/2Fg4xYs

New Issue Out Now: BEAUTY AND THE BRAIN

The brain is beautiful. From single cells to the sulci and gyri on an MRI, there is a lot to admire. In this issue of the newsletter, we dive into neuroaesthetics, an exciting field studying how beauty is created, understood and valued by the brain. To start things off, why not take a short primer course (page 3), or hear about it straight from the source: scientists working at the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics (pages 8-11)? We also take a look at whether beauty is only skin-deep literally (pages 15 and 17) and figuratively (pages 13 and 18-19), and how a pretty face (or not…) impacts your chances in life and academia (pages 5 and 12). Do art and beauty always go hand in hand (pages 16-17 and 20)? What if drugs get into the mixture (page 21)?

As part of a recent scientific writing workshop, we are trying to give the newsletter a ‘makeover’. For this purpose we want to hear from YOU, dear readers! See our survey on the next page, give us your best elevator pitch (page 21) or get involved with writing or editing. On this note, a huge shout-out to new author Nina Stöberl, whose story on page 14 and beautiful image of the neuromuscular junction provided our cover art! Most importantly, we want to cover more topics that are directly relevant to our audience, to that end check out our great front-line reporting and critique on Charité PhD life (pages 22-24).

This issue, we are excited to welcome four new members of our proofreading and editorial team: Bettina Schmerl, Aarti Swaminathan, Malika Renz and Zara Khan. Unfortunately, we also have some sad news as well: Helge, one of co-editors-in-chief is about to finish his PhD, and will transition into the exciting and glamorous world of consulting. Thanks for everything Helge, and thanks for all of your hard work for the newsletter! Replacing Helge and joining Constance as the new EIC is Claudia Willmes, an alumna of AG Eickholt and Schmitz and current editor of our blog. We look forward to working with Claudia and expanding our presence both on the web and the written page.
Beautifully yours,

Constance Holman & Helge Hasselmann co-editors-in-chief

Access the full issue here.

The Secret of Beauty

Beauty Lies in the Eyes of the Beholder

The concept of "ideal beauty" has changed over time, based on a shift of cultural values. Beauty involves symmetry, harmony, and balance with nature and is associated with emotional wellbeing [1]. For example, women are widely acknowledged most beautiful when they are relatively young, with smooth skin and well-proportioned bodies (a waist-to-hip ratio of approximately 0.70) [2].

Ideal Meets Reality 

Surprisingly, scientists have found that “ideal beauty” can be found in "averageness" [2]. When averaging images of human faces to form a composite image, they are perceived as more attractive. In contrast, cultural values and the media influence “real beauty”. For example, in ancient China, women with small feet were considered more beautiful. Girls bound their feet tightly to inhibit their growth and appear attractive. Contemporary western media has extended this ideal of “slimness” to the whole body, often featuring very slender women and promoting eating disorders as a side effect.

An ideal beauty arrived in reality – Nefertiti. Her name means "a beautiful woman has arrived". Nefertiti, regarded a legendary queen of beauty, has been honored not only for her beautiful face, but also her kindness and intelligence. The definition of beauty is not only based on external features (i.e. facial and physical attractiveness), but also the inner beauty (i.e. personality, intelligence, grace, and charisma). Even cloaked in ugliness, we humans tend to prefer inner beauty to outward appearances [1].

Nefertiti bust in Neues Museum, Berlin, taken by Philip Pikart

The Value of Beauty

Beauty cannot be understood without ugliness. To be ugly is to deviate highly from “ideal beauty”. Ischizu and Zeki (2011) formulated a brain-based theory for this duality: our brain may have at least two different judgment systems for experiences involving beauty and ugliness [3]: The experience of beauty engaged the medial orbito-frontal cortex, an area containing the centers of desire, pleasure, reward, and value judgments in the brain. The experience of ugliness was confined to the amygdala and the motor cortex [3]. Gotshalk said that ‘‘beauty is a value’’, that it evokes desire and that whatever is desired has value [4]. This implies an intimate link between beauty, value, and desire in cortical processing.

BEAUTY CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD WITHOUT UGLINESS.

What is Beautiful?

Our judgments of beauty are not arbitrary, but are slanted towards highly phenotypical and genetic quality to enhance survival and reproductive success [5]. A healthy, fertile mate offers considerable benefits over an unhealthy, infertile one in evolutionary terms. One example is that of mens' preference for women with high reproductive value (young and healthy) [6]. Thus, perceptions of beauty are likely evolutionarily determined by a “mate-quality hypothesis” [5].

Perceptual biases and associative learning also regulate beauty preferences [7]. Face recognition is not innate, though the ability to develop this skill is. Infants can discriminate between individual monkeys and human faces at 6 months, but not at 9 months without continued learning [7].

Given the same input (i.e. the existence of men, women, variation in age and features), we might expect to find generally similar preferences across cultures [8]. This can be tempered by associative learning of local conditions (age­‐specific fertility). Ghirlanda et al. (2002) showed that chickens share some of the same beauty standards as humans and that they prefer beautiful humans [9]. This result seems to speak against the mate-quality hypothesis, which suggests that preferences are species-specific. It might, however, be that similar preferences could develop by learning. 

CHICKENS PREFER BEAUTIFUL HUMANS.

Show, Do Not Tell 

Beauty seems to be about many obvious, but also subtle things and it might well be that beauty is not about anything except itself. If someone wanted to make sense out of beauty, it would kill what is great about it. But those who accept beauty on its own terms will find it a fascinating experience. Samuel Clemens said, “Don't tell us that the old lady screamed. Bring her on and let her scream." Through interactive action instead of passive reception, it enables individuals to have their own experiences, interpret it in a way that they understand and lets them draw their own conclusions. Regardless of the complexity of beauty, its simple secret lies in the fact that you feel that you and someone (or something) can understand each other even without explicit communication.

[1] Umberto Eco, History of Beauty, 2004

[2] Little et al, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 2011

[3] Ishizu and Zeki, PLoS One, 2011

[4] Gotshalk, J Philos, 1935

[5] Andersson, Sexual Selection, 1994
[6] Smith, Perrett et al, Proc Biol Sci, 2006
[7] Pascalis et al, Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci, 2011
[8] Coetzee et al, PloS One, 2014
[9] Ghirlanda et al, Hum Nat, 2002

by  Shuyan Liu, PhD Student AG Heinz
This article originally appeared 2015 in CNS Volume 8, Issue 2, Art. And the Brain.