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

IF 3.1 3区 工程技术 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES Cognitive Neurodynamics Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1007/s11571-024-10151-8
Chunyu Ma, Yimeng Jin, Johan Lauwereyns
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在人类的感知决策中,速度-准确性权衡在紧迫性和准确性降低之间建立了因果联系。至于速度与视觉图像的主观评价之间的关系,人们则知之甚少。在此,我们进行了一组四项实验,以揭示速度与主观评价之间关系的两种不同假设。速度-两极分化权衡 "假设意味着紧迫性会导致更多的两极分化评价。与此相反,"易处理 "假设认为,速度与两极化之间的任何关联都是由于与评价相关的图像内容的显著性造成的。内容越突出,处理起来就越容易,因此评价也就越快、越极端。在每个实验中,我们都要求参与者对图像进行从-10到+10的连续评价,并测量他们的反应时间;在实验1-3中,参与者对现实世界中的图像进行道德评价(从 "非常不道德"-10到 "非常道德 "+10);在实验4中,参与者对食物图像进行食欲评价(从 "非常恶心"-10到 "非常诱人 "+10)。在实验 1、3 和 4 中,我们使用了提示程序,逐次告知被试他们是可以进行自定步调(SP)评价,还是必须在 2 秒钟内进行限时(TL)评价。与 SP 条件相比,TL 条件下的反应速度始终要快得多,这表明我们的紧迫性操纵是成功的。然而,比较 SP 和 TL 条件,我们发现在任何评价中都没有显著差异。然而,所报告的道德评价处理的难易程度与反应速度和评价的极化程度都有很大关系。数据的总体模式表明,虽然速度与极化有关,但紧迫性并不会导致参与者做出更极端的评价。相反,速度与极化之间的关联反映了处理的难易程度。与解释不确定的图像相比,易于评价的图像会引起更快和更极端的评分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
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.

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
Cognitive Neurodynamics
Cognitive Neurodynamics 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
18.90%
发文量
140
审稿时长
12 months
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.
期刊最新文献
A memristor-based circuit design of avoidance learning with time delay and its application Perceptual information processing in table tennis players: based on top-down hierarchical predictive coding EEG-based deception detection using weighted dual perspective visibility graph analysis The dynamical behavior effects of different numbers of discrete memristive synaptic coupled neurons Advancements in automated diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder through deep learning and resting-state functional mri biomarkers: a systematic review
×
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