Blending simulation and abstraction for physical reasoning

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105995
{"title":"Blending simulation and abstraction for physical reasoning","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2024.105995","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>How are people able to understand everyday physical events with such ease? One hypothesis suggests people use an approximate probabilistic simulation of the world. A contrasting hypothesis is that people use a collection of abstractions or features. While it has been noted that the two hypotheses explain complementary aspects of physical reasoning, there has yet to be a model of how these two modes of reasoning can be used together. We develop a “blended model” that synthesizes the two hypotheses: under certain conditions, simulation is replaced by a visuo-spatial abstraction (linear path projection). This abstraction purchases efficiency at the cost of fidelity, and the blended model predicts that people will make systematic errors whenever the conditions for applying the abstraction are met. We tested this prediction in two experiments where participants made judgments about whether a falling ball will contact a target. First, we show that response times are longer when straight-line paths are unavailable, even when simulation time is held fixed, arguing against a pure-simulation model (Experiment 1). Second, we show that people incorrectly judge the trajectory of the ball in a manner consistent with linear path projection (Experiment 2). We conclude that people have access to a flexible mental physics engine, but adaptively invoke more efficient abstractions when they are useful.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","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/S0010027724002816","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

How are people able to understand everyday physical events with such ease? One hypothesis suggests people use an approximate probabilistic simulation of the world. A contrasting hypothesis is that people use a collection of abstractions or features. While it has been noted that the two hypotheses explain complementary aspects of physical reasoning, there has yet to be a model of how these two modes of reasoning can be used together. We develop a “blended model” that synthesizes the two hypotheses: under certain conditions, simulation is replaced by a visuo-spatial abstraction (linear path projection). This abstraction purchases efficiency at the cost of fidelity, and the blended model predicts that people will make systematic errors whenever the conditions for applying the abstraction are met. We tested this prediction in two experiments where participants made judgments about whether a falling ball will contact a target. First, we show that response times are longer when straight-line paths are unavailable, even when simulation time is held fixed, arguing against a pure-simulation model (Experiment 1). Second, we show that people incorrectly judge the trajectory of the ball in a manner consistent with linear path projection (Experiment 2). We conclude that people have access to a flexible mental physics engine, but adaptively invoke more efficient abstractions when they are useful.
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
融合模拟和抽象,促进物理推理
人们为什么能够如此轻松地理解日常物理事件?一种假设认为,人们使用的是对世界的近似概率模拟。与之相反的假设则认为,人们使用的是一系列抽象概念或特征。虽然人们注意到这两种假设可以解释物理推理的互补性,但还没有一个模型可以说明这两种推理模式如何结合使用。我们开发了一种 "混合模型",它综合了这两种假设:在某些条件下,模拟被视觉空间抽象(线性路径投影)所取代。这种抽象以逼真度为代价来提高效率,混合模型预测,只要满足应用抽象的条件,人们就会犯系统性错误。我们在两个实验中测试了这一预测,实验中参与者对下落的球是否会接触目标做出判断。首先,我们表明,当直线路径不可用时,即使模拟时间保持不变,人们的反应时间也会更长,这与纯模拟模型相悖(实验 1)。其次,我们证明了人们以符合直线路径投射的方式错误地判断了球的轨迹(实验 2)。我们的结论是,人们可以使用灵活的心理物理引擎,但在有用时会自适应地调用更有效的抽象概念。
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
Impact of conflicts between long- and short-term priors on the weighted prior integration in visual perception Predicting large-scale spatial ability from small-scale spatial abilities in children: An application of the double-dimension framework Motor inhibition prevents motor execution during typing imagery: Evidence from an action-mode switching paradigm Blending simulation and abstraction for physical reasoning On the role of analytic thinking in religious belief change: Evidence from over 50,000 participants in 16 countries
×
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