运动空间定向判断中的方向偏差及飞行惯性
|
摘要
模拟客体起飞和降落运动,探讨飞行场景中不同运动位置、不同意义客体和运动方向下个体运动空间定向判断能力。结果表明:(1)对降落运动轨迹的判断正确率显著低于起飞运动;(2)无意义客体偏高轨迹的判断正确率显著小于偏低轨迹,表现出方向偏差;(3)飞行场景影响方向偏差的表现形式,当飞机降落运动时,易将偏低路径判断为与预设轨迹相同,而飞机起飞运动时,易将偏高路径判断为相同,表明降落时飞机被知觉为会向斜下方越飞越低,而起飞时飞机会向斜上方越飞越高,表现出飞行惯性。结论:运动空间定向判断受到重力表征及个体知识经验等共同影响,具有认知可渗透性。
Motion perception refers to the effect of the characteristics of the motion on the human's brain, which is perceived and recognized by the individual. It is the result of a variety of sensory coordination activities, such as vision, kinesthesis and equilibrium sense. Studies about representational momentum have indicated that the forward displacement of the final position of a moving target is not only along its moving direction,but also along the direction of orthogonal axis, demonstrating that motion spatial orientation shows both distance and direction deviation. The present research was to explore the direction deviation under different situations, and the cognitive penetrability of motion perception by changing the meaning of the stimuli, the direction of movement and motion patterns of the stimuli.The experiment 1 adopted circle image while experiment 2 adopted the airplane image which was designed as a simple line-drawn image. Both experiment 1 and 2 obeyed a full factorial design: 2(motion pattern: take-off, landing) × 2(direction: rightward, leftward) × 3(moving position: same,higher, lower trajectory).Our research showed several results. First, motion pattern significantly affected the accuracy steadily when asking to determine whether the actual trajectory of the stimulus was the same with the preset one. When the object landed, people made more wrong decisions. However, the effect of moving direction on accuracy depended on the meaning of the stimulus. Only when the object was meaningless in experiment 1, rightward movement led to more wrong decisions. When the object was the airplane image, the accuracy was the same between the rightward and leftward motions. Second,moving position had an influence on participants' judgement. We found that when actual trajectory was slightly higher than the preset one, participants were more likely to made wrong decisions compared to that when the actual trajectory was lower than the preset one, p <.05, which demonstrated direction deviation in experiment 1. However, when the stimulus was airplane, we found that the direction deviation occurred differently compared with which was observed in experiment 1. Third, the form of direction deviation depended on the relationship between the animacy of the object and the flying scene. When the object was the airplane image, and the landing motion was performed, it was more likely for participants to make the same response when the actual trajectory was lower than the preset one. However, when take-off motion was performed for the airplane, it was more likely to make the same response when the actual trajectory was higher than the preset one. The results above indicated that participants were more likely to consider the airplane to fly lower and lower when landing movement was performed, and to fly higher and higher when take-off movement was performed. The different forms of direction deviation was in accordance with the phenomena of the flight inertia.We demonstrate that when object is moving, it does deviate from its preset trajectory. However, the direction deviation is not always the same for take-off and landing mmovements which can be influenced by the animacy of object, the gravity, and motion patterns. Our results suggest that the motion perception is cognitively penetrable.
Motion perception refers to the effect of the characteristics of the motion on the human's brain, which is perceived and recognized by the individual. It is the result of a variety of sensory coordination activities, such as vision, kinesthesis and equilibrium sense. Studies about representational momentum have indicated that the forward displacement of the final position of a moving target is not only along its moving direction,but also along the direction of orthogonal axis, demonstrating that motion spatial orientation shows both distance and direction deviation. The present research was to explore the direction deviation under different situations, and the cognitive penetrability of motion perception by changing the meaning of the stimuli, the direction of movement and motion patterns of the stimuli.The experiment 1 adopted circle image while experiment 2 adopted the airplane image which was designed as a simple line-drawn image. Both experiment 1 and 2 obeyed a full factorial design: 2(motion pattern: take-off, landing) × 2(direction: rightward, leftward) × 3(moving position: same,higher, lower trajectory).Our research showed several results. First, motion pattern significantly affected the accuracy steadily when asking to determine whether the actual trajectory of the stimulus was the same with the preset one. When the object landed, people made more wrong decisions. However, the effect of moving direction on accuracy depended on the meaning of the stimulus. Only when the object was meaningless in experiment 1, rightward movement led to more wrong decisions. When the object was the airplane image, the accuracy was the same between the rightward and leftward motions. Second,moving position had an influence on participants' judgement. We found that when actual trajectory was slightly higher than the preset one, participants were more likely to made wrong decisions compared to that when the actual trajectory was lower than the preset one, p <.05, which demonstrated direction deviation in experiment 1. However, when the stimulus was airplane, we found that the direction deviation occurred differently compared with which was observed in experiment 1. Third, the form of direction deviation depended on the relationship between the animacy of the object and the flying scene. When the object was the airplane image, and the landing motion was performed, it was more likely for participants to make the same response when the actual trajectory was lower than the preset one. However, when take-off motion was performed for the airplane, it was more likely to make the same response when the actual trajectory was higher than the preset one. The results above indicated that participants were more likely to consider the airplane to fly lower and lower when landing movement was performed, and to fly higher and higher when take-off movement was performed. The different forms of direction deviation was in accordance with the phenomena of the flight inertia.We demonstrate that when object is moving, it does deviate from its preset trajectory. However, the direction deviation is not always the same for take-off and landing mmovements which can be influenced by the animacy of object, the gravity, and motion patterns. Our results suggest that the motion perception is cognitively penetrable.
引文
晏碧华,刘晓敏,刘浩哲.(2018).飞行场景中表征动量的地标吸引效应和排斥效应.心理学报,50,703-714.
晏碧华,游旭群,杨仕云.(2011).飞行员在空间定向动态任务中的加工优势.人类工效学,17,5-8.
张志杰,黄希庭.(1998).Tau理论的研究及其新发展.西南师范大学学报:自然科学版,23,715-720.
De SáTeixeira,N.,&Oliveira,A.M.(2014).Spatial and foveal biases,not perceived mass or heaviness,explain the effect of target size on representational momentum and representational gravity.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,40,1664-1679.
De SáTeixeira,N.,Pimenta,S.,&Raposo,V.(2013).A null effect of target's velocity in the visual representation of motion with schizophrenic patients.Journal of Abnormal Psychology,122,223-230.
Freyd,J.J.,&Finke,R.A.(1984).Representational momentum.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,10,126-132.
Hubbard,T.L.(1997).Target size and displacement along the axis of implied gravitational attraction:Effects of implied weight and evidence of representational gravity.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,23,1484-1493.
Hubbard,T.L.,&Motes,M.A.(2002).Does representational momentum reflect a distortion of the length or the endpoint of a trajectory?Cognition,82,B89-B99.
Hubbard,T.L.(2014).Forms of momentum across space:Representational,operational,and attentional.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,21,1371-1403.
Hubbard,T.L.(2015).The varieties of momentum-like experience.Psychological Bulletin,141,1081-1119.
Pylyshyn,Z.W.(1999).Is vision continuous with cognition?The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception.Behavioral and Brain Sciences,22,341-423.
Reed,C,L.,&Vinson,N.G.(1996).Conceptual effects on representational momentum.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,22,839-850.
Siegel,S.(2012).Cognitive penetrability and perceptual justification.No?s,46,201-222.
晏碧华,游旭群,杨仕云.(2011).飞行员在空间定向动态任务中的加工优势.人类工效学,17,5-8.
张志杰,黄希庭.(1998).Tau理论的研究及其新发展.西南师范大学学报:自然科学版,23,715-720.
De SáTeixeira,N.,&Oliveira,A.M.(2014).Spatial and foveal biases,not perceived mass or heaviness,explain the effect of target size on representational momentum and representational gravity.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,40,1664-1679.
De SáTeixeira,N.,Pimenta,S.,&Raposo,V.(2013).A null effect of target's velocity in the visual representation of motion with schizophrenic patients.Journal of Abnormal Psychology,122,223-230.
Freyd,J.J.,&Finke,R.A.(1984).Representational momentum.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,10,126-132.
Hubbard,T.L.(1997).Target size and displacement along the axis of implied gravitational attraction:Effects of implied weight and evidence of representational gravity.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,23,1484-1493.
Hubbard,T.L.,&Motes,M.A.(2002).Does representational momentum reflect a distortion of the length or the endpoint of a trajectory?Cognition,82,B89-B99.
Hubbard,T.L.(2014).Forms of momentum across space:Representational,operational,and attentional.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,21,1371-1403.
Hubbard,T.L.(2015).The varieties of momentum-like experience.Psychological Bulletin,141,1081-1119.
Pylyshyn,Z.W.(1999).Is vision continuous with cognition?The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception.Behavioral and Brain Sciences,22,341-423.
Reed,C,L.,&Vinson,N.G.(1996).Conceptual effects on representational momentum.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,22,839-850.
Siegel,S.(2012).Cognitive penetrability and perceptual justification.No?s,46,201-222.