On the determination of eye gaze and arrow direction: Automaticity reconsidered.

IF 1.1 4区心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale Pub Date : 2021-09-01 Epub Date: 2021-06-07 DOI:10.1037/cep0000261

Derek Besner, David McLean, Torin Young

{"title":"On the determination of eye gaze and arrow direction: Automaticity reconsidered.","authors":"Derek Besner, David McLean, Torin Young","doi":"10.1037/cep0000261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is a widely held view that the determination of eye gaze direction is \"automatic\" in various senses (e.g., innate; informationally encapsulated; triggered without intent). The determination of arrow direction is also held to be automatic (following a certain amount of learning) despite not being innate. The present experiments evaluate the automaticity assumption of both eyes and arrows in terms of an interference criterion. The results of 10 experiments support the inference that explicit judgements of eye gaze direction, when participants respond with a lateralized key press, are (a) neither automatic in the strong sense (they are interfered with by an uninformative, incongruent arrow in the display) and (b) nor are they are automatic in a weaker sense (uninformative, incongruent arrows interfere more strongly with the determination of eye gaze direction than uninformative, incongruent eyes interfere with the arrow direction task). However, the determination of arrow direction is also not strongly automatic, given that it is interfered with by irrelevant eyes. At least with respect to an interference criterion, the determination of eye gaze direction appears less prepotent than the determination of arrow direction, which itself is only weakly automatic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":51529,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000261","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/6/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is a widely held view that the determination of eye gaze direction is "automatic" in various senses (e.g., innate; informationally encapsulated; triggered without intent). The determination of arrow direction is also held to be automatic (following a certain amount of learning) despite not being innate. The present experiments evaluate the automaticity assumption of both eyes and arrows in terms of an interference criterion. The results of 10 experiments support the inference that explicit judgements of eye gaze direction, when participants respond with a lateralized key press, are (a) neither automatic in the strong sense (they are interfered with by an uninformative, incongruent arrow in the display) and (b) nor are they are automatic in a weaker sense (uninformative, incongruent arrows interfere more strongly with the determination of eye gaze direction than uninformative, incongruent eyes interfere with the arrow direction task). However, the determination of arrow direction is also not strongly automatic, given that it is interfered with by irrelevant eyes. At least with respect to an interference criterion, the determination of eye gaze direction appears less prepotent than the determination of arrow direction, which itself is only weakly automatic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

关于眼睛注视和箭头方向的确定:重新考虑自动性。

人们普遍认为，眼睛注视方向的决定在各种意义上是“自动的”(例如，天生的;信息封装;触发无意图)。箭头方向的决定也被认为是自动的(遵循一定数量的学习)，尽管不是天生的。本实验根据干涉准则对眼睛和箭头的自动性假设进行了评价。10个实验的结果支持这样的推断，即当参与者以侧边按键作出反应时，对眼睛注视方向的明确判断(a)在强意义上既不是自动的(它们受到显示器中不提供信息的、不一致的箭头的干扰)，(b)在弱意义上也不是自动的(不提供信息的、不一致的箭头比不提供信息的箭头更强烈地干扰眼睛注视方向的确定)。不一致的眼睛干扰箭头方向任务)。然而，箭头方向的确定也不是很强的自动，因为它被不相干的眼睛干扰。至少就干扰标准而言，眼睛凝视方向的确定似乎不如箭头方向的确定更有优势，箭头方向本身只是弱自动的。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA，版权所有)。

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

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology-Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Experimentale PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-

CiteScore

2.30

自引率

7.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology publishes original research papers that advance understanding of the field of experimental psychology, broadly considered. This includes, but is not restricted to, cognition, perception, motor performance, attention, memory, learning, language, decision making, development, comparative psychology, and neuroscience. The journal publishes - papers reporting empirical results that advance knowledge in a particular research area; - papers describing theoretical, methodological, or conceptual advances that are relevant to the interpretation of empirical evidence in the field; - brief reports (less than 2,500 words for the main text) that describe new results or analyses with clear theoretical or methodological import.