This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
This study examines audience acceptance of AIGC-assisted animation visual styles incorporating Chinese traditional patterns and explores the relationships among associated perceptual and affective factors.Drawing on the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) framework and Schema Congruity Theory, the study develops an analytical model comprising the recognizability of traditional pattern features, perceived cultural authenticity, cultural resonance, perceived stylistic congruity, aesthetic pleasure, and audience acceptance.A structured questionnaire survey was conducted among adult respondents with prior animation-viewing experience, yielding 411 valid responses.Reliability and validity assessments, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), correlation analysis, structural equation modeling (SEM), and bootstrap-based indirect effect analysis were employed to evaluate the measurement model and hypothesized relationships.The results indicate that traditional pattern recognizability is positively associated with perceived cultural authenticity, which in turn is associated with cultural resonance.Perceived stylistic congruity is positively associated with aesthetic pleasure, while both cultural resonance and aesthetic pleasure are significantly related to audience acceptance, with cultural resonance showing a comparatively stronger association.Bootstrap analysis further supports significant indirect relationships within both the cultural evaluation and visual-aesthetic pathways.The findings suggest that AIGC-assisted animation visual design incorporating traditional patterns should move beyond superficial symbol collage and emphasize recognizable cultural characteristics, coherent stylistic integration, and meaningful visual expression.This study offers an audience-centered perspective on evaluating AIGC-assisted cultural animation and provides references for the contemporary visual transformation of traditional patterns.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: