通过视觉和触觉感官替代装置做出的感知等效判断

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Ecological Psychology Pub Date : 2018-06-18 DOI:10.1080/10407413.2018.1473712
Luis H. Favela, M. Riley, K. Shockley, A. Chemero
{"title":"通过视觉和触觉感官替代装置做出的感知等效判断","authors":"Luis H. Favela, M. Riley, K. Shockley, A. Chemero","doi":"10.1080/10407413.2018.1473712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT According to the ecological theory of perception–action, perception is primarily of affordances, which are directly perceivable opportunities for behavior. The current study evaluated participants’ ability to use vision and haptic sensory-substitution devices to support perceptual judgments of affordances involving the task of passing through apertures. Sighted participants made perceptual judgments about whether they could walk through apertures of various widths and their level of confidence in each judgment, using unrestricted vision and, when blindfolded, using two haptic sensory-substitution instruments: a cane-like wooden rod and the Enactive Torch, a device that converts distance information into vibrotactile stimuli. The boundary between aperture widths that were judged as pass-through-able versus non-pass-through-able was statistically equivalent across sensory modalities. However, participants were not as confident in their judgments using the rod or Enactive Torch as they were using vision. Additionally, participants’ judgments with the haptic instruments were significantly more accurate than with vision. The results underscore the need to assess sensory-substitution devices in the context of functional behaviors.","PeriodicalId":47279,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10407413.2018.1473712","citationCount":"23","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceptually Equivalent Judgments Made Visually and via Haptic Sensory-Substitution Devices\",\"authors\":\"Luis H. Favela, M. Riley, K. Shockley, A. Chemero\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10407413.2018.1473712\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT According to the ecological theory of perception–action, perception is primarily of affordances, which are directly perceivable opportunities for behavior. The current study evaluated participants’ ability to use vision and haptic sensory-substitution devices to support perceptual judgments of affordances involving the task of passing through apertures. Sighted participants made perceptual judgments about whether they could walk through apertures of various widths and their level of confidence in each judgment, using unrestricted vision and, when blindfolded, using two haptic sensory-substitution instruments: a cane-like wooden rod and the Enactive Torch, a device that converts distance information into vibrotactile stimuli. The boundary between aperture widths that were judged as pass-through-able versus non-pass-through-able was statistically equivalent across sensory modalities. However, participants were not as confident in their judgments using the rod or Enactive Torch as they were using vision. Additionally, participants’ judgments with the haptic instruments were significantly more accurate than with vision. The results underscore the need to assess sensory-substitution devices in the context of functional behaviors.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47279,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecological Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10407413.2018.1473712\",\"citationCount\":\"23\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecological Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2018.1473712\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10407413.2018.1473712","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

摘要

根据感知-行动的生态学理论,感知主要是对启示的感知,启示是行为的直接可感知的机会。目前的研究评估了参与者使用视觉和触觉感官替代设备来支持通过孔的任务的可视性感知判断的能力。视力正常的参与者使用不受限制的视觉,并在蒙上眼睛的情况下,使用两种触觉感官替代工具(一种像手杖一样的木棍和一种将距离信息转换为振动触觉刺激的装置),对他们是否能穿过不同宽度的孔洞以及他们对每种判断的信心程度做出感知判断。被判断为可通过与不可通过的孔径宽度之间的边界在统计上是等效的。然而,参与者在使用棍子或激活火炬时对自己的判断并不像使用视觉时那么自信。此外,参与者使用触觉工具的判断明显比视觉更准确。结果强调了在功能行为的背景下评估感觉替代装置的必要性。
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
Perceptually Equivalent Judgments Made Visually and via Haptic Sensory-Substitution Devices
ABSTRACT According to the ecological theory of perception–action, perception is primarily of affordances, which are directly perceivable opportunities for behavior. The current study evaluated participants’ ability to use vision and haptic sensory-substitution devices to support perceptual judgments of affordances involving the task of passing through apertures. Sighted participants made perceptual judgments about whether they could walk through apertures of various widths and their level of confidence in each judgment, using unrestricted vision and, when blindfolded, using two haptic sensory-substitution instruments: a cane-like wooden rod and the Enactive Torch, a device that converts distance information into vibrotactile stimuli. The boundary between aperture widths that were judged as pass-through-able versus non-pass-through-able was statistically equivalent across sensory modalities. However, participants were not as confident in their judgments using the rod or Enactive Torch as they were using vision. Additionally, participants’ judgments with the haptic instruments were significantly more accurate than with vision. The results underscore the need to assess sensory-substitution devices in the context of functional behaviors.
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
Ecological Psychology
Ecological Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
10.50%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: This unique journal publishes original articles that contribute to the understanding of psychological and behavioral processes as they occur within the ecological constraints of animal-environment systems. It focuses on problems of perception, action, cognition, communication, learning, development, and evolution in all species, to the extent that those problems derive from a consideration of whole animal-environment systems, rather than animals or their environments in isolation from each other. Significant contributions may come from such diverse fields as human experimental psychology, developmental/social psychology, animal behavior, human factors, fine arts, communication, computer science, philosophy, physical education and therapy, speech and hearing, and vision research.
期刊最新文献
Intergroup Relations as Dynamical Systems: Advancements and Recommendations for Research on Intergroup Friendship and Prejudice Confrontations Remembering Reuben Baron: Creating a Better Social and Ecological Psychology Socializing Ecological Psychology, Ecologizing Social Psychology: How Reuben Baron Shaped the Ecological Approach to Social Knowing, Cooperation, and Values Extending Affordances with Evolutionary Psychology and Connectionist Models: An Essay in Honor of Reuben Baron Conceptualizing the Environment in a Time of Ecological Collapse
×
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