ArticlePloS one2025
Human asymmetries in AI art: Syntax and writing direction effects on agent position in AI-generated images.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study investigates positional patterns in visual representations generated by two artificial intelligence (AI) models in response to textual prompts describing interactions between two animate entities. The primary objective is to assess whether the syntactic structure of a given sentence influences the spatial positioning of the agent (i.e., the entity performing the action) within the generated image. The study follows research showing that in art produced by humans, positioning of agents on the picture depends on reading-writing direction: entities mentioned first are positioned on the left side by people from cultures with left-to-right writing script disproportionately more often than on the right side. We prompted FLUX and DALL⋅E 3 with 20 English sentences, 10 passive and 10 active ones, and generated 4,000 pictures in total. In active sentences, FLUX positioned the agent to the left side of the picture significantly more often than to the right side. In passive sentences, both models positioned the agent to the right significantly more often than to the left. In general, DALL⋅E 3 placed agents to the right more often than FLUX. The models partially copied the tendencies of humans in active sentences conditions, however, in passive sentences conditions, the models had a much stronger tendency to place agents to the right than did humans. Our study demonstrates that these AI models, primarily influenced by English language patterns, may be replicating and even amplifying Western (English-specific) spatial biases, potentially diminishing the diversity of visual representation influenced by other languages and cultures. This has consequences for the visual landscape around us: AI pictorial art is overflowing our visual space and the information that we have imprinted into pictures as intrinsically human is changing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.