自动模仿受刺激物清晰度的调节,但不受灵性的调节。

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY Attention Perception & Psychophysics Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-31 DOI:10.3758/s13414-024-02935-1
Hannah Wilt, Yuchunzi Wu, Antony Trotter, Patti Adank
{"title":"自动模仿受刺激物清晰度的调节,但不受灵性的调节。","authors":"Hannah Wilt, Yuchunzi Wu, Antony Trotter, Patti Adank","doi":"10.3758/s13414-024-02935-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Observing actions evokes an automatic imitative response that activates mechanisms required to execute these actions. Automatic imitation is measured using the Stimulus Response Compatibility (SRC) task, which presents participants with compatible and incompatible prompt-distractor pairs. Automatic imitation, or the compatibility effect, is the difference in response times (RTs) between incompatible and compatible trials. Past results suggest that an action's animacy affects automatic imitation: human-produced actions evoke larger effects than computer-generated actions. However, it appears that animacy effects occur mostly when non-human stimuli are less complex or less clear. Theoretical accounts make conflicting predictions regarding both stimulus manipulations. We conducted two SRC experiments that presented participants with an animacy manipulation (human and computer-generated stimuli, Experiment 1) and a clarity manipulation (stimuli with varying visual clarity using Gaussian blurring, Experiments 1 and 2) to tease apart effect of these manipulations. Participants in Experiment 1 responded slower for incompatible than for compatible trials, showing a compatibility effect. Experiment 1 found a null effect of animacy, but stimuli with lower visual clarity evoked smaller compatibility effects. Experiment 2 modulated clarity in five steps and reports decreasing compatibility effects for stimuli with lower clarity. Clarity, but not animacy, therefore affected automatic imitation, and theoretical implications and future directions are considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":55433,"journal":{"name":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11411005/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Automatic imitation is modulated by stimulus clarity but not by animacy.\",\"authors\":\"Hannah Wilt, Yuchunzi Wu, Antony Trotter, Patti Adank\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13414-024-02935-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Observing actions evokes an automatic imitative response that activates mechanisms required to execute these actions. Automatic imitation is measured using the Stimulus Response Compatibility (SRC) task, which presents participants with compatible and incompatible prompt-distractor pairs. Automatic imitation, or the compatibility effect, is the difference in response times (RTs) between incompatible and compatible trials. Past results suggest that an action's animacy affects automatic imitation: human-produced actions evoke larger effects than computer-generated actions. However, it appears that animacy effects occur mostly when non-human stimuli are less complex or less clear. Theoretical accounts make conflicting predictions regarding both stimulus manipulations. We conducted two SRC experiments that presented participants with an animacy manipulation (human and computer-generated stimuli, Experiment 1) and a clarity manipulation (stimuli with varying visual clarity using Gaussian blurring, Experiments 1 and 2) to tease apart effect of these manipulations. Participants in Experiment 1 responded slower for incompatible than for compatible trials, showing a compatibility effect. Experiment 1 found a null effect of animacy, but stimuli with lower visual clarity evoked smaller compatibility effects. Experiment 2 modulated clarity in five steps and reports decreasing compatibility effects for stimuli with lower clarity. Clarity, but not animacy, therefore affected automatic imitation, and theoretical implications and future directions are considered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Attention Perception & Psychophysics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11411005/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Attention Perception & Psychophysics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-024-02935-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-024-02935-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

观察动作会引起自动模仿反应,从而激活执行这些动作所需的机制。自动模仿是通过 "刺激反应兼容性(SRC)"任务来测量的。自动模仿或兼容性效应是指不兼容和兼容试验之间反应时间(RTs)的差异。过去的研究结果表明,动作的生动性会影响自动模仿:人类制作的动作比计算机生成的动作能唤起更大的效应。然而,动画效应似乎主要发生在非人类刺激不太复杂或不太清晰的情况下。理论界对这两种刺激操作的预测相互矛盾。我们进行了两个 SRC 实验,分别向参与者展示了灵动性操作(人类和计算机生成的刺激,实验 1)和清晰度操作(使用高斯模糊的不同视觉清晰度的刺激,实验 1 和 2),以区分这些操作的效果。在实验 1 中,参与者对不相容试验的反应比对相容试验的反应慢,这表明存在相容效应。实验 1 发现动画效果为零,但视觉清晰度较低的刺激引起的相容效果较小。实验 2 分五个步骤对清晰度进行了调节,结果表明,清晰度较低的刺激物所产生的相容效应逐渐减弱。因此,清晰度(而非生动性)对自动模仿有影响,本实验的理论意义和未来发展方向值得探讨。
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
Automatic imitation is modulated by stimulus clarity but not by animacy.

Observing actions evokes an automatic imitative response that activates mechanisms required to execute these actions. Automatic imitation is measured using the Stimulus Response Compatibility (SRC) task, which presents participants with compatible and incompatible prompt-distractor pairs. Automatic imitation, or the compatibility effect, is the difference in response times (RTs) between incompatible and compatible trials. Past results suggest that an action's animacy affects automatic imitation: human-produced actions evoke larger effects than computer-generated actions. However, it appears that animacy effects occur mostly when non-human stimuli are less complex or less clear. Theoretical accounts make conflicting predictions regarding both stimulus manipulations. We conducted two SRC experiments that presented participants with an animacy manipulation (human and computer-generated stimuli, Experiment 1) and a clarity manipulation (stimuli with varying visual clarity using Gaussian blurring, Experiments 1 and 2) to tease apart effect of these manipulations. Participants in Experiment 1 responded slower for incompatible than for compatible trials, showing a compatibility effect. Experiment 1 found a null effect of animacy, but stimuli with lower visual clarity evoked smaller compatibility effects. Experiment 2 modulated clarity in five steps and reports decreasing compatibility effects for stimuli with lower clarity. Clarity, but not animacy, therefore affected automatic imitation, and theoretical implications and future directions are considered.

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
3.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
197
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics is an official journal of the Psychonomic Society. It spans all areas of research in sensory processes, perception, attention, and psychophysics. Most articles published are reports of experimental work; the journal also presents theoretical, integrative, and evaluative reviews. Commentary on issues of importance to researchers appears in a special section of the journal. Founded in 1966 as Perception & Psychophysics, the journal assumed its present name in 2009.
期刊最新文献
Combined manifestation of two geometric visual illusions. Valence versus motivation: The different impact of emotion on space- and object-based attention. The effect of object perception on event integration and segregation Multisensory working memory capture of attention Guess what? Only correct choices forge immediate stimulus–response bindings in guessing scenarios
×
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