Pub Date : 2017-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10407413.2017.1368354
M. Pacheco, Tsung-Yu Hsieh, K. Newell
ABSTRACT Practice has been conceptualized in terms of a search process through an evolving perceptual-motor workspace. The experiment was set up to examine whether the inherent variability of the system would influence perception of the relevant properties of the task space. We reanalyzed the data from Hsieh, Liu, Mayer-Kress, and Newell (2013) in which participants performed a speed-accuracy aiming task and feedback emphasized either temporal or spatial accuracy in different conditions. The maximum variability in spatial error during practice differentiated individual's best performance in the fast speed-accuracy conditions. Additionally, we found that a threshold of variability predicted discontinuities during practice within individuals. The findings support the proposition that inherent variability affords perception of the relevant dimension of the task. The search motion through the perceptual-motor workspace was continuous or discontinuous depending on the constraints of the movement speed-accuracy condition.
{"title":"Search Strategies in Practice: Movement Variability Affords Perception of Task Dynamics","authors":"M. Pacheco, Tsung-Yu Hsieh, K. Newell","doi":"10.1080/10407413.2017.1368354","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2017.1368354","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Practice has been conceptualized in terms of a search process through an evolving perceptual-motor workspace. The experiment was set up to examine whether the inherent variability of the system would influence perception of the relevant properties of the task space. We reanalyzed the data from Hsieh, Liu, Mayer-Kress, and Newell (2013) in which participants performed a speed-accuracy aiming task and feedback emphasized either temporal or spatial accuracy in different conditions. The maximum variability in spatial error during practice differentiated individual's best performance in the fast speed-accuracy conditions. Additionally, we found that a threshold of variability predicted discontinuities during practice within individuals. The findings support the proposition that inherent variability affords perception of the relevant dimension of the task. The search motion through the perceptual-motor workspace was continuous or discontinuous depending on the constraints of the movement speed-accuracy condition.","PeriodicalId":47279,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Psychology","volume":"29 1","pages":"243 - 258"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2017-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10407413.2017.1368354","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46693124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10407413.2017.1369852
M. Mangalam, D. Fragaszy, K. Newell, E. Visalberghi
ABSTRACT Handheld tools transform the actor's body into a body-plus-tool system such that the fit of the actor's body, the tool, and the task demand channel movement in action. In this study, we performed a biomechanical analysis of percussive actions in wild bearded capuchin monkeys, Sapajus libidinosus at Fazenda Boa Vista, Brazil, as they cracked open tucum nuts with anvil-and-hammer tools from the frame of reference of the body-plus-tool system. The ratio of hammer mass to body mass—the “body-scaled hammer mass”—influenced the monkeys' actions with a hammer and their performance in cracking nuts. Both body mass and hammer mass did not independently influence the monkeys' actions with a hammer and their performance in cracking nuts. These findings support the hypothesis that the properties of the body-plus-tool system are not simply the sum of the properties of the body and the tool.
{"title":"Stone-Tool Use in Wild Monkeys: Implications for the Study of the Body-Plus-Tool System","authors":"M. Mangalam, D. Fragaszy, K. Newell, E. Visalberghi","doi":"10.1080/10407413.2017.1369852","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2017.1369852","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Handheld tools transform the actor's body into a body-plus-tool system such that the fit of the actor's body, the tool, and the task demand channel movement in action. In this study, we performed a biomechanical analysis of percussive actions in wild bearded capuchin monkeys, Sapajus libidinosus at Fazenda Boa Vista, Brazil, as they cracked open tucum nuts with anvil-and-hammer tools from the frame of reference of the body-plus-tool system. The ratio of hammer mass to body mass—the “body-scaled hammer mass”—influenced the monkeys' actions with a hammer and their performance in cracking nuts. Both body mass and hammer mass did not independently influence the monkeys' actions with a hammer and their performance in cracking nuts. These findings support the hypothesis that the properties of the body-plus-tool system are not simply the sum of the properties of the body and the tool.","PeriodicalId":47279,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Psychology","volume":"29 1","pages":"300 - 316"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2017-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10407413.2017.1369852","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44395227","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10407413.2017.1369853
Julie Mathieu, R. Bootsma, C. Berthelon, G. Montagne
ABSTRACT We characterized the control mechanisms underlying crossing an intersection with vehicular traffic. Specifically, we identified potential markers of the coupling between information and movement through a kinematic analysis of the approach. We exposed participants in a driving simulator experiment to several scenarios. We manipulated task constraints by varying the acceleration capabilities of the vehicle and the time available to make speed adjustments. The results highlighted gradual, systematic adjustments, which make it possible to cross the intersection in a zone that is close to the center of the intervehicular gap. The functional nature of these adjustments was highlighted by concomitant and opposite variation in the variability of current speed and current deviation. In all cases, an increase in the standard deviation of speed was accompanied by a reduction in the standard deviation of current deviation. Neither time to make adjustments nor acceleration capabilities modified the observed kinematic patterns, but they did modulate the adjustments that were produced. Overall, these results were consistent with a control mechanism based on the implementation of an information–movement cycle.
{"title":"Information–Movement Coupling in The Control of Driver Approach to an Intersection","authors":"Julie Mathieu, R. Bootsma, C. Berthelon, G. Montagne","doi":"10.1080/10407413.2017.1369853","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2017.1369853","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We characterized the control mechanisms underlying crossing an intersection with vehicular traffic. Specifically, we identified potential markers of the coupling between information and movement through a kinematic analysis of the approach. We exposed participants in a driving simulator experiment to several scenarios. We manipulated task constraints by varying the acceleration capabilities of the vehicle and the time available to make speed adjustments. The results highlighted gradual, systematic adjustments, which make it possible to cross the intersection in a zone that is close to the center of the intervehicular gap. The functional nature of these adjustments was highlighted by concomitant and opposite variation in the variability of current speed and current deviation. In all cases, an increase in the standard deviation of speed was accompanied by a reduction in the standard deviation of current deviation. Neither time to make adjustments nor acceleration capabilities modified the observed kinematic patterns, but they did modulate the adjustments that were produced. Overall, these results were consistent with a control mechanism based on the implementation of an information–movement cycle.","PeriodicalId":47279,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Psychology","volume":"29 1","pages":"317 - 341"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2017-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10407413.2017.1369853","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43423769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-10-02DOI: 10.1080/10407413.2017.1368355
Damian G. Kelty-Stephen, Sebastian Wallot
ABSTRACT This article addresses the still popular but incorrect idea that monofractal (sometimes called “fractal” for short) structure might be a definitive signature of nonlinearity and, as a corollary, that monofractal analyses are nonlinear analyses. That this point (i.e., “fractal = nonlinear”) is incorrect remains novel to many readers. We suspect that unfamiliarity with autocorrelation has helped eclipse the linearity of fractal structure from more popular appreciation. In this article, in order to explain the linear nature of monofractality and its difference from multifractality, we present an introduction to the autocorrelation function and review short-lag memory, nonstationary motions, and the intermediary set of fractionally integrated processes that conventional fractal analyses quantify. Understanding from our own experiences how surprising the linearity of fractals is to accept, we attempt to make our points clear with as much graphic depiction as math. We hope to share our own experiences in struggling with this potentially strange-sounding idea that, really, monofractals are linear while at the same time contrasting them to multifractals that can indicate nonlinearity.
{"title":"Multifractality Versus (Mono-) Fractality as Evidence of Nonlinear Interactions Across Timescales: Disentangling the Belief in Nonlinearity From the Diagnosis of Nonlinearity in Empirical Data","authors":"Damian G. Kelty-Stephen, Sebastian Wallot","doi":"10.1080/10407413.2017.1368355","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2017.1368355","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article addresses the still popular but incorrect idea that monofractal (sometimes called “fractal” for short) structure might be a definitive signature of nonlinearity and, as a corollary, that monofractal analyses are nonlinear analyses. That this point (i.e., “fractal = nonlinear”) is incorrect remains novel to many readers. We suspect that unfamiliarity with autocorrelation has helped eclipse the linearity of fractal structure from more popular appreciation. In this article, in order to explain the linear nature of monofractality and its difference from multifractality, we present an introduction to the autocorrelation function and review short-lag memory, nonstationary motions, and the intermediary set of fractionally integrated processes that conventional fractal analyses quantify. Understanding from our own experiences how surprising the linearity of fractals is to accept, we attempt to make our points clear with as much graphic depiction as math. We hope to share our own experiences in struggling with this potentially strange-sounding idea that, really, monofractals are linear while at the same time contrasting them to multifractals that can indicate nonlinearity.","PeriodicalId":47279,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Psychology","volume":"29 1","pages":"259 - 299"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2017-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10407413.2017.1368355","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44608884","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-07-03DOI: 10.1080/10407413.2017.1331116
T. Stoffregen, Bruno Mantel, B. Bardy
ABSTRACT J. J. Gibson (1966) rejected many classical assumptions about perception but retained 1 that dates back to classical antiquity: the assumption of separate senses. We suggest that Gibson's retention of this assumption compromised his novel concept of perceptual systems. We argue that lawful, 1:1 specification of the animal–environment interaction, which is necessary for perception to be direct, cannot exist in individual forms of ambient energy, such as light, or sound. We argue that specification exists exclusively in emergent, higher order patterns that extend across different forms of ambient energy. These emergent, higher order patterns constitute the global array. If specification exists exclusively in the global array, then direct perception cannot be based upon detection of patterns that are confined to individual forms of ambient energy and, therefore, Gibson's argument for the existence of several distinct perceptual systems cannot be correct. We argue that the senses function as a single, irreducible perceptual system that is sensitive exclusively to patterns in the global array. That is, rather than distinct perceptual systems there exists only 1 perceptual system.
{"title":"The Senses Considered as One Perceptual System","authors":"T. Stoffregen, Bruno Mantel, B. Bardy","doi":"10.1080/10407413.2017.1331116","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2017.1331116","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT J. J. Gibson (1966) rejected many classical assumptions about perception but retained 1 that dates back to classical antiquity: the assumption of separate senses. We suggest that Gibson's retention of this assumption compromised his novel concept of perceptual systems. We argue that lawful, 1:1 specification of the animal–environment interaction, which is necessary for perception to be direct, cannot exist in individual forms of ambient energy, such as light, or sound. We argue that specification exists exclusively in emergent, higher order patterns that extend across different forms of ambient energy. These emergent, higher order patterns constitute the global array. If specification exists exclusively in the global array, then direct perception cannot be based upon detection of patterns that are confined to individual forms of ambient energy and, therefore, Gibson's argument for the existence of several distinct perceptual systems cannot be correct. We argue that the senses function as a single, irreducible perceptual system that is sensitive exclusively to patterns in the global array. That is, rather than distinct perceptual systems there exists only 1 perceptual system.","PeriodicalId":47279,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Psychology","volume":"29 1","pages":"165 - 197"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2017-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10407413.2017.1331116","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45189271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-07-03DOI: 10.1080/10407413.2017.1330121
A. Costall
ABSTRACT The “later” James Gibson is widely misrepresented as an extreme stimulus–response theorist. In fact, Gibson's 1966 book presents a radical alternative to stimulus–response theory. “Perceptual systems” are not passive and receptive but “organs of active attention” (1966/1968, p. 58). Perceivers “reach out” into the world. This commentary examines some of the implications of Gibson's systems-cum-functionalist-cum-ecological approach, including the relations between the senses; the concept of “sensationless” perception; and most fundamentally, the nature of perceptual systems as extending beyond the body. I conclude that an adequate understanding of perception cannot be limited to the already severely limited domain of psychology. If Gibson is right, “ecological psychology” is a contradiction in terms.
{"title":"1966 and All That: James Gibson and Bottom-Down Theory","authors":"A. Costall","doi":"10.1080/10407413.2017.1330121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2017.1330121","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The “later” James Gibson is widely misrepresented as an extreme stimulus–response theorist. In fact, Gibson's 1966 book presents a radical alternative to stimulus–response theory. “Perceptual systems” are not passive and receptive but “organs of active attention” (1966/1968, p. 58). Perceivers “reach out” into the world. This commentary examines some of the implications of Gibson's systems-cum-functionalist-cum-ecological approach, including the relations between the senses; the concept of “sensationless” perception; and most fundamentally, the nature of perceptual systems as extending beyond the body. I conclude that an adequate understanding of perception cannot be limited to the already severely limited domain of psychology. If Gibson is right, “ecological psychology” is a contradiction in terms.","PeriodicalId":47279,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Psychology","volume":"29 1","pages":"221 - 230"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2017-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10407413.2017.1330121","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44823152","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-07-03DOI: 10.1080/10407413.2017.1332460
P. Covarrubias, Felipe Cabrera, Á. Jiménez
ABSTRACT Although Gibson focused his agenda on the study of perception and Skinner on learning as contingencies of reinforcement, they shared a nonrepresentational approach. We propose that the ecological concept of invariants developed in Gibson's book The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems (1966) could underlie Skinner's notion of contingencies of reinforcement as environmental opportunities for behaving. The proposal is divided in 3 parts: the concept of stimulus for perception, the role of the notion of invariants in the operant contingency, and the information for perception and behavior. We conclude that approximating contingencies of reinforcement as instances of environmental invariants can be fruitful for studying a number of phenomena within the context of operant conditioning.
{"title":"Invariants and Information Pickup in The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems: Implications for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior","authors":"P. Covarrubias, Felipe Cabrera, Á. Jiménez","doi":"10.1080/10407413.2017.1332460","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2017.1332460","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Although Gibson focused his agenda on the study of perception and Skinner on learning as contingencies of reinforcement, they shared a nonrepresentational approach. We propose that the ecological concept of invariants developed in Gibson's book The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems (1966) could underlie Skinner's notion of contingencies of reinforcement as environmental opportunities for behaving. The proposal is divided in 3 parts: the concept of stimulus for perception, the role of the notion of invariants in the operant contingency, and the information for perception and behavior. We conclude that approximating contingencies of reinforcement as instances of environmental invariants can be fruitful for studying a number of phenomena within the context of operant conditioning.","PeriodicalId":47279,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Psychology","volume":"29 1","pages":"231 - 242"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2017-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10407413.2017.1332460","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43947983","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-07-03DOI: 10.1080/10407413.2017.1331316
P. Covarrubias, Felipe Cabrera, Á. Jiménez, A. Costall
ABSTRACT This editorial presents the second of a 2-part special issue honoring the publication of James J. Gibson's 1966 book, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. As was pointed out by several reviews of this book written just after its publication (i.e., between 1967 and 1969), Gibson's 1966 book represents a revolution not only for the psychological science but also for domains beyond that of psychology. This second part of the special issue is composed of 5 theoretical contributions that represent, in addition to the 4 pieces previously published in the first part, the far-reaching influence of Gibson's ecological revolution.
{"title":"The Ecological Revolution: The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems, 50 Years Later - Part 2","authors":"P. Covarrubias, Felipe Cabrera, Á. Jiménez, A. Costall","doi":"10.1080/10407413.2017.1331316","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2017.1331316","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This editorial presents the second of a 2-part special issue honoring the publication of James J. Gibson's 1966 book, The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. As was pointed out by several reviews of this book written just after its publication (i.e., between 1967 and 1969), Gibson's 1966 book represents a revolution not only for the psychological science but also for domains beyond that of psychology. This second part of the special issue is composed of 5 theoretical contributions that represent, in addition to the 4 pieces previously published in the first part, the far-reaching influence of Gibson's ecological revolution.","PeriodicalId":47279,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Psychology","volume":"29 1","pages":"161 - 164"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2017-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10407413.2017.1331316","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44639307","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-07-03DOI: 10.1080/10407413.2017.1330119
P. Amazeen, E. Amazeen
ABSTRACT On the 50th anniversary of its publication, we look back on some of the intellectual contributions of Gibson's (1966) The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. This work is often seen as contributing a new perspective to our understanding of the 5 senses. In this paper, we explore another intellectual contribution: Gibson's treatment of perception–action as an irreducible, functional system. We review select examples of systems thinking from the physical, animal, and human social domains. Our suggestion is that a systems-level approach to social interactions would have been a natural extension of Gibson's ideas.
{"title":"A Systems Approach to Perception and Action","authors":"P. Amazeen, E. Amazeen","doi":"10.1080/10407413.2017.1330119","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2017.1330119","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT On the 50th anniversary of its publication, we look back on some of the intellectual contributions of Gibson's (1966) The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. This work is often seen as contributing a new perspective to our understanding of the 5 senses. In this paper, we explore another intellectual contribution: Gibson's treatment of perception–action as an irreducible, functional system. We review select examples of systems thinking from the physical, animal, and human social domains. Our suggestion is that a systems-level approach to social interactions would have been a natural extension of Gibson's ideas.","PeriodicalId":47279,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Psychology","volume":"29 1","pages":"213 - 220"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2017-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10407413.2017.1330119","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42814502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：