没有证据证明存在 "有意 "约束。

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-18 DOI:10.1037/xhp0001204
Gaiqing Kong, Cheryne Aberkane, Clément Desoche, Alessandro Farnè, Marine Vernet
{"title":"没有证据证明存在 \"有意 \"约束。","authors":"Gaiqing Kong, Cheryne Aberkane, Clément Desoche, Alessandro Farnè, Marine Vernet","doi":"10.1037/xhp0001204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intentional binding refers to the subjective temporal compression between a voluntary action and its subsequent sensory outcome. Despite some studies challenging the link between temporal compression and intentional action, intentional binding is still widely used as an implicit measure for the sense of agency. The debate remains unsettled primarily because the experimental conditions used in previous studies were confounded with various alternative causes for temporal compression, and action intention has not yet been tested comprehensively against all potential alternative causes in a single study. Here, we solve this puzzle by jointly comparing participants' estimates of the interval between three types of triggering events with comparable predictability-voluntary movement, passive movement, and external sensory event-and an external sensory outcome (auditory or visual across experiments). The results failed to show intentional binding, that is, no shorter interval estimation for the voluntary than the passive movement conditions. Instead, we observed temporal (but not intentional) binding when comparing both movement conditions with the external sensory condition. Thus, temporal binding appears to originate from sensory integration and temporal prediction, not from action intention. As such, these findings underscore the need to reconsider the use of \"intentional binding\" as a reliable proxy of the sense of agency. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":50195,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No evidence in favor of the existence of \\\"intentional\\\" binding.\",\"authors\":\"Gaiqing Kong, Cheryne Aberkane, Clément Desoche, Alessandro Farnè, Marine Vernet\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xhp0001204\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Intentional binding refers to the subjective temporal compression between a voluntary action and its subsequent sensory outcome. Despite some studies challenging the link between temporal compression and intentional action, intentional binding is still widely used as an implicit measure for the sense of agency. The debate remains unsettled primarily because the experimental conditions used in previous studies were confounded with various alternative causes for temporal compression, and action intention has not yet been tested comprehensively against all potential alternative causes in a single study. Here, we solve this puzzle by jointly comparing participants' estimates of the interval between three types of triggering events with comparable predictability-voluntary movement, passive movement, and external sensory event-and an external sensory outcome (auditory or visual across experiments). The results failed to show intentional binding, that is, no shorter interval estimation for the voluntary than the passive movement conditions. Instead, we observed temporal (but not intentional) binding when comparing both movement conditions with the external sensory condition. Thus, temporal binding appears to originate from sensory integration and temporal prediction, not from action intention. As such, these findings underscore the need to reconsider the use of \\\"intentional binding\\\" as a reliable proxy of the sense of agency. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50195,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001204\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001204","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

意向束缚指的是自愿行动与随后的感官结果之间的主观时间压缩。尽管一些研究对时间压缩与有意行动之间的联系提出了质疑,但有意束缚仍被广泛用作衡量代理感的隐性指标。这一争论之所以悬而未决,主要是因为以往研究中使用的实验条件与时间压缩的各种替代原因相混淆,而行动意向尚未在一项研究中针对所有潜在的替代原因进行全面测试。在这里,我们通过联合比较参与者对三类具有可比预测性的触发事件--自主运动、被动运动和外部感觉事件--与外部感觉结果(听觉或视觉,不同实验中均有)之间的时间间隔的估计,解决了这一难题。结果未能显示出有意结合,也就是说,自主运动条件下的时间间隔估计没有比被动运动条件下的时间间隔估计短。相反,在将两种运动条件与外部感觉条件进行比较时,我们观察到了时间上的(但不是有意的)约束。因此,时间束缚似乎源于感觉整合和时间预测,而非行动意图。因此,这些发现强调有必要重新考虑使用 "意向束缚 "作为代理感的可靠代表。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
No evidence in favor of the existence of "intentional" binding.

Intentional binding refers to the subjective temporal compression between a voluntary action and its subsequent sensory outcome. Despite some studies challenging the link between temporal compression and intentional action, intentional binding is still widely used as an implicit measure for the sense of agency. The debate remains unsettled primarily because the experimental conditions used in previous studies were confounded with various alternative causes for temporal compression, and action intention has not yet been tested comprehensively against all potential alternative causes in a single study. Here, we solve this puzzle by jointly comparing participants' estimates of the interval between three types of triggering events with comparable predictability-voluntary movement, passive movement, and external sensory event-and an external sensory outcome (auditory or visual across experiments). The results failed to show intentional binding, that is, no shorter interval estimation for the voluntary than the passive movement conditions. Instead, we observed temporal (but not intentional) binding when comparing both movement conditions with the external sensory condition. Thus, temporal binding appears to originate from sensory integration and temporal prediction, not from action intention. As such, these findings underscore the need to reconsider the use of "intentional binding" as a reliable proxy of the sense of agency. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
145
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance publishes studies on perception, control of action, perceptual aspects of language processing, and related cognitive processes.
期刊最新文献
Speeded classification of visual events is sensitive to crossmodal intensity correspondence. Proactive suppression is an implicit process that cannot be summoned on demand. First impressions from faces in dynamic approach-avoidance contexts. Between-task transfer of item-specific control is replicable and extends to novel conditions. No evidence in favor of the existence of "intentional" binding.
×
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