Communicated priors tune the perception of control

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition Pub Date : 2024-10-04 DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105969
George Blackburne , Chris D. Frith , Daniel Yon
{"title":"Communicated priors tune the perception of control","authors":"George Blackburne ,&nbsp;Chris D. Frith ,&nbsp;Daniel Yon","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105969","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Action allows us to shape the world around us. But to act effectively we need to accurately sense what we can and cannot control. Classic theories across cognitive science suppose that this ‘sense of agency’ is constructed from the sensorimotor signals we experience as we interact with our surroundings. But these sensorimotor signals are inherently ambiguous, and can provide us with a distorted picture of what we can and cannot influence. Here we investigate one way that agents like us might overcome the inherent ambiguity of these signals: by combining noisy sensorimotor evidence with prior beliefs about control acquired through explicit communication with others. Using novel tools to measure and model control decisions, we find that explicit beliefs about the controllability of the environment alter both the sensitivity and bias of agentic choices; meaning that we are both better at detecting <em>and</em> more biased to feel control when we are told to expect it. These seemingly paradoxical effects on agentic choices can be captured by a computational model where expecting to be in control exaggerates the sensitivity or ‘gain’ of the mechanisms we use to detect our influence over our surroundings – making us increasingly sensitised to both true and illusory signs of agency. In combination, these results reveal a cognitive and computational mechanism that allows public communication about what we can and cannot influence to reshape our private sense of control.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"254 ","pages":"Article 105969"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027724002555","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Action allows us to shape the world around us. But to act effectively we need to accurately sense what we can and cannot control. Classic theories across cognitive science suppose that this ‘sense of agency’ is constructed from the sensorimotor signals we experience as we interact with our surroundings. But these sensorimotor signals are inherently ambiguous, and can provide us with a distorted picture of what we can and cannot influence. Here we investigate one way that agents like us might overcome the inherent ambiguity of these signals: by combining noisy sensorimotor evidence with prior beliefs about control acquired through explicit communication with others. Using novel tools to measure and model control decisions, we find that explicit beliefs about the controllability of the environment alter both the sensitivity and bias of agentic choices; meaning that we are both better at detecting and more biased to feel control when we are told to expect it. These seemingly paradoxical effects on agentic choices can be captured by a computational model where expecting to be in control exaggerates the sensitivity or ‘gain’ of the mechanisms we use to detect our influence over our surroundings – making us increasingly sensitised to both true and illusory signs of agency. In combination, these results reveal a cognitive and computational mechanism that allows public communication about what we can and cannot influence to reshape our private sense of control.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
传达的先验信息会调整控制感知。
行动能让我们塑造周围的世界。但是,为了有效地行动,我们需要准确地感知我们能控制和不能控制的东西。认知科学的经典理论认为,这种 "代入感 "是由我们与周围环境互动时所体验到的感觉运动信号构建而成的。但是,这些感觉运动信号本质上是模糊的,会让我们对自己能控制和不能控制的事物产生扭曲的认识。在这里,我们研究了像我们这样的代理人克服这些信号固有模糊性的一种方法:将嘈杂的感觉运动证据与通过与他人明确交流而获得的有关控制的先验信念相结合。通过使用新工具来测量和模拟控制决策,我们发现关于环境可控性的明确信念会改变代理选择的敏感性和偏差;也就是说,当我们被告知期望控制时,我们会更善于发现控制,也更倾向于感受控制。这些对代理选择的看似矛盾的影响可以用一个计算模型来捕捉,在这个模型中,期望被控制会夸大我们用来检测我们对周围环境的影响的机制的灵敏度或 "增益"--使我们对真实和虚幻的代理迹象越来越敏感。综合来看,这些结果揭示了一种认知和计算机制,它允许关于我们能影响什么和不能影响什么的公开交流重塑我们的私人控制感。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cognition
Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
283
期刊介绍: Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.
期刊最新文献
The role of exceptions in children's and adults' judgments about generic statements. Partisan language in a polarized world: In-group language provides reputational benefits to speakers while polarizing audiences. What's left of the leftward bias in scene viewing? Lateral asymmetries in information processing during early search guidance. Language enables the acquisition of distinct sensorimotor memories for speech. Morality on the road: Should machine drivers be more utilitarian than human drivers?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1