{"title":"速度与主观评价过程中的两极分化有关:没有取舍,而是处理难易程度的影响","authors":"Chunyu Ma, Yimeng Jin, Johan Lauwereyns","doi":"10.1007/s11571-024-10151-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In human perceptual decision-making, the speed-accuracy tradeoff establishes a causal link between urgency and reduced accuracy. Less is known about how speed relates to the subjective evaluation of visual images. Here, we conducted a set of four experiments to tease apart two alternative hypotheses for the relation between speed and subjective evaluation. The hypothesis of “Speed-Polarization Tradeoff” implies that urgency causes more polarized evaluations. In contrast, the “Ease-of-Processing” hypothesis suggests that any association between speed and polarization is due to the salience of evaluation-relevant image content. The more salient the content, the easier to process, and therefore the faster and more extreme the evaluation. In each experiment, we asked participants to evaluate images on a continuous scale from − 10 to + 10 and measured their response times; in Experiments 1–3, the participants rated real-world images in terms of morality (from “very immoral,” -10, to “very moral,” +10); in Experiment 4, the participants rated food images in terms of appetitiveness (from “very disgusting,” -10, to “very attractive,” +10). In Experiments 1, 3, and 4, we used a cueing procedure to inform the participants on a trial-by-trial basis whether they could make a self-paced (SP) evaluation or whether they had to perform a time-limited (TL) evaluation within 2 s. In Experiment 2, we asked participants to rate the easiness of their SP moral evaluations. Compared to the SP conditions, the responses in the TL condition were consistently much faster, indicating that our urgency manipulation was successful. However, comparing the SP versus TL conditions, we found no significant differences in any of the evaluations. Yet, the reported ease of processing of moral evaluation covaried strongly with both the response speed and the polarization of evaluation. The overall pattern of data indicated that, while speed is associated with polarization, urgency does not cause participants to make more extreme evaluations. Instead, the association between speed and polarization reflects the ease of processing. Images that are easy to evaluate evoke faster and more extreme scores than images for which the interpretation is uncertain.</p>","PeriodicalId":10500,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Neurodynamics","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Speed is associated with polarization during subjective evaluation: no tradeoff, but an effect of the ease of processing\",\"authors\":\"Chunyu Ma, Yimeng Jin, Johan Lauwereyns\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11571-024-10151-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In human perceptual decision-making, the speed-accuracy tradeoff establishes a causal link between urgency and reduced accuracy. Less is known about how speed relates to the subjective evaluation of visual images. Here, we conducted a set of four experiments to tease apart two alternative hypotheses for the relation between speed and subjective evaluation. The hypothesis of “Speed-Polarization Tradeoff” implies that urgency causes more polarized evaluations. In contrast, the “Ease-of-Processing” hypothesis suggests that any association between speed and polarization is due to the salience of evaluation-relevant image content. The more salient the content, the easier to process, and therefore the faster and more extreme the evaluation. In each experiment, we asked participants to evaluate images on a continuous scale from − 10 to + 10 and measured their response times; in Experiments 1–3, the participants rated real-world images in terms of morality (from “very immoral,” -10, to “very moral,” +10); in Experiment 4, the participants rated food images in terms of appetitiveness (from “very disgusting,” -10, to “very attractive,” +10). In Experiments 1, 3, and 4, we used a cueing procedure to inform the participants on a trial-by-trial basis whether they could make a self-paced (SP) evaluation or whether they had to perform a time-limited (TL) evaluation within 2 s. In Experiment 2, we asked participants to rate the easiness of their SP moral evaluations. Compared to the SP conditions, the responses in the TL condition were consistently much faster, indicating that our urgency manipulation was successful. However, comparing the SP versus TL conditions, we found no significant differences in any of the evaluations. Yet, the reported ease of processing of moral evaluation covaried strongly with both the response speed and the polarization of evaluation. The overall pattern of data indicated that, while speed is associated with polarization, urgency does not cause participants to make more extreme evaluations. Instead, the association between speed and polarization reflects the ease of processing. Images that are easy to evaluate evoke faster and more extreme scores than images for which the interpretation is uncertain.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10500,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Neurodynamics\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Neurodynamics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11571-024-10151-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Neurodynamics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11571-024-10151-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Speed is associated with polarization during subjective evaluation: no tradeoff, but an effect of the ease of processing
In human perceptual decision-making, the speed-accuracy tradeoff establishes a causal link between urgency and reduced accuracy. Less is known about how speed relates to the subjective evaluation of visual images. Here, we conducted a set of four experiments to tease apart two alternative hypotheses for the relation between speed and subjective evaluation. The hypothesis of “Speed-Polarization Tradeoff” implies that urgency causes more polarized evaluations. In contrast, the “Ease-of-Processing” hypothesis suggests that any association between speed and polarization is due to the salience of evaluation-relevant image content. The more salient the content, the easier to process, and therefore the faster and more extreme the evaluation. In each experiment, we asked participants to evaluate images on a continuous scale from − 10 to + 10 and measured their response times; in Experiments 1–3, the participants rated real-world images in terms of morality (from “very immoral,” -10, to “very moral,” +10); in Experiment 4, the participants rated food images in terms of appetitiveness (from “very disgusting,” -10, to “very attractive,” +10). In Experiments 1, 3, and 4, we used a cueing procedure to inform the participants on a trial-by-trial basis whether they could make a self-paced (SP) evaluation or whether they had to perform a time-limited (TL) evaluation within 2 s. In Experiment 2, we asked participants to rate the easiness of their SP moral evaluations. Compared to the SP conditions, the responses in the TL condition were consistently much faster, indicating that our urgency manipulation was successful. However, comparing the SP versus TL conditions, we found no significant differences in any of the evaluations. Yet, the reported ease of processing of moral evaluation covaried strongly with both the response speed and the polarization of evaluation. The overall pattern of data indicated that, while speed is associated with polarization, urgency does not cause participants to make more extreme evaluations. Instead, the association between speed and polarization reflects the ease of processing. Images that are easy to evaluate evoke faster and more extreme scores than images for which the interpretation is uncertain.
期刊介绍:
Cognitive Neurodynamics provides a unique forum of communication and cooperation for scientists and engineers working in the field of cognitive neurodynamics, intelligent science and applications, bridging the gap between theory and application, without any preference for pure theoretical, experimental or computational models.
The emphasis is to publish original models of cognitive neurodynamics, novel computational theories and experimental results. In particular, intelligent science inspired by cognitive neuroscience and neurodynamics is also very welcome.
The scope of Cognitive Neurodynamics covers cognitive neuroscience, neural computation based on dynamics, computer science, intelligent science as well as their interdisciplinary applications in the natural and engineering sciences. Papers that are appropriate for non-specialist readers are encouraged.
1. There is no page limit for manuscripts submitted to Cognitive Neurodynamics. Research papers should clearly represent an important advance of especially broad interest to researchers and technologists in neuroscience, biophysics, BCI, neural computer and intelligent robotics.
2. Cognitive Neurodynamics also welcomes brief communications: short papers reporting results that are of genuinely broad interest but that for one reason and another do not make a sufficiently complete story to justify a full article publication. Brief Communications should consist of approximately four manuscript pages.
3. Cognitive Neurodynamics publishes review articles in which a specific field is reviewed through an exhaustive literature survey. There are no restrictions on the number of pages. Review articles are usually invited, but submitted reviews will also be considered.