Spontaneous visual perspective-taking with constant attention cue: A modified dot-perspective task paradigm
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics - Trang 1-10 - 2023
Tóm tắt
It has been argued that humans can employ mentalizing implicitly and automatically, even with others' visual experiences. In terms of visual perspective-taking (i.e., inferring another's visual experience), the Dot Perspective Task has been considered to provide evidence for this hypothesis. People were found to respond slower when their visual experience was inconsistent with others’ (referred to as the consistency effect). However, the specific underlying cognitive process of the consistency effect has been a topic of intense debate, i.e., whether the consistency effect represents a process of social cognition such as mentalizing. Here, we introduce a modified version of the Dot Perspective Task, in which all the targets appear at the position where the avatar is gazing, while some of the targets are invisible to the avatar due to a barrier that may block the avatar's line of sight. Therefore, the effect of perspective-taking and attention-cueing can be better disassociated in the modified paradigm. The results of Experiment 1 illustrated a significant consistency effect, which was further confirmed in Experiment 2. More importantly, the consistency effect was absent in Experiment 3, where the avatar sat with his back to the participants. These findings imply that the consistency effect reflects the automatic computation of others’ visual information, and rule out the attention-cueing account of the consistency effect.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Adenzato, M., Brambilla, M., Manenti, R., De Lucia, L., Trojano, L., Garofalo, S., Enrici, I., & Cotelli, M. (2017). Gender differences in cognitive Theory of Mind revealed by transcranial direct current stimulation on medial prefrontal cortex. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 41219. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep41219
Baker, L. J., Levin, D. T., & Saylor, M. M. (2016). The extent of default visual perspective taking in complex layouts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(4), 508–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000164
Baron-Cohen, S., Lombardo, M., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2013). Understanding Other Minds: Perspectives from developmental social neuroscience (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199692972.001.0001
Cole, G. G., Atkinson, M., Le, A. T. D., & Smith, D. T. (2016). Do humans spontaneously take the perspective of others? Acta Psychologica, 164, 165–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.01.007
Conway, J. R., Lee, D., Ojaghi, M., Catmur, C., & Bird, G. (2017). Submentalizing or mentalizing in a Level 1 perspective-taking task: A cloak and goggles test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(3), 454–465. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000319
Creem-Regehr, S., Gagnon, K., Geuss, M., Stefanucci, J. (2013). Relating spatial perspective taking to the perception of other’s affordances: Providing a foundation for predicting the future behavior of others. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00596
Drayton, L. A., Santos, L. R., & Baskin-Sommers, A. (2018). Psychopaths fail to automatically take the perspective of others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(13), 3302–3307. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721903115
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.
Flavell, J. H. (1977). The development of knowledge about visual perception. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 25, 43–76.
Furlanetto, T., Becchio, C., Samson, D., & Apperly, I. (2016). Altercentric interference in level 1 visual perspective taking reflects the ascription of mental states, not submentalizing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(2), 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000138
Gardner, M. R., Hull, Z., Taylor, D., & Edmonds, C. J. (2018). ‘Spontaneous’ visual perspective-taking mediated by attention orienting that is voluntary and not reflexive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(4), 1020–1029. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1307868
Gardner, M. R., Bileviciute, A. P., & Edmonds, C. J. (2018). Implicit mentalising during Level-1 visual perspective-taking indicated by dissociation with attention orienting. Vision, 2(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision2010003
Gibson, J. J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740218
Gutiérrez-Domínguez, F. J., Pazo-Alvarez, P., Doallo, S., Fuentes, L., Lorenzo-López, L., & Amenedo, E. (2014). Vertical asymmetries and inhibition of return: Effects of spatial and non-spatial cueing on behavior and visual ERPs. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 91(2), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.12.004
Holland, C., Shin, S. M., Phillips, J. (2021). Do you see what I see? A meta-analysis of the Dot Perspective Task. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 43(43). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7cs5r2xq
Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1991). Perspective-Taking in Communication: Representations of Others’ Knowledge in Reference. Social Cognition, 9(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1991.9.1.2
Langton, S. R. H. (2018). I Don’t See It Your Way: The Dot Perspective Task Does Not Gauge Spontaneous Perspective Taking. Vision, 2(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision2010006
Marshall, J., Gollwitzer, A., & Santos, L. R. (2018). Does altercentric interference rely on mentalizing?: Results from two level-1 perspective-taking tasks. PLOS ONE, 13(3), e0194101. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194101
McHugh, L., & Stewart, I. (2012). The self and perspective taking: Contributions and applications from modern behavioral science. New Harbinger Publications.
Michelon, P., & Zacks, J. M. (2006). Two kinds of visual perspective taking. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(2), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193680
O’Grady, C., Scott-Phillips, T., Lavelle, S., & Smith, K. (2020). Perspective-taking is spontaneous but not automatic. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(10), 1605–1628. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820942479
Orr, C. A., & Nicholls, M. E. (2005). The nature and contribution of space-and object-based attentional biases to free-viewing perceptual asymmetries. Experimental Brain Research, 162, 384–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-004-2196-3
Palmer, S. E. (1992). Common region: A new principle of perceptual grouping. Cognitive psychology, 24(3), 436–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90014-S
Pavlidou, A., Gallagher, M., Lopez, C., & Ferrè, E. R. (2019). Let’s share our perspectives, but only if our body postures match. Cortex, 119, 575–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.02.019
Pesimena, G., & Soranzo, A. (2022). Both the domain-general and the mentalizing processes affect visual perspective taking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(3), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221094310
Qureshi, A. W., Apperly, I. A., & Samson, D. (2010). Executive function is necessary for perspective selection, not Level-1 visual perspective calculation: Evidence from a dual-task study of adults. Cognition, 117(2), 230–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.003
Samson, D., Apperly, I., Braithwaite, J., Andrews, B., & Scott, S. (2010). Seeing it their way: Evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1255–1266. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018729
Santiesteban, I., Catmur, C., Hopkins, S. C., Bird, G., & Heyes, C. (2014). Avatars and arrows: Implicit mentalizing or domain-general processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(3), 929. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035175
Shelton, A. L., Clements-Stephens, A. M., Lam, W. Y., Pak, D. M., & Murray, A. J. (2012). Should social savvy equal good spatial skills? The interaction of social skills with spatial perspective taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(2), 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024617
Stoet, G. (2010). PsyToolkit: A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods, 42(4), 1096–1104. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.4.1096
Todd, A. R., Simpson, A. J., & Cameron, C. D. (2019). Time pressure disrupts level-2, but not level-1, visual perspective calculation: A process-dissociation analysis. Cognition, 189, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.03.002
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830–846. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.830
Vestner, T., Over, H., Gray, K. L. H., & Cook, R. (2022). Objects that direct visuospatial attention produces the search advantage for facing dyads. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151, 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001067
Ward, E., Ganis, G., McDonough, K. L., & Bach, P. (2020). Perspective taking as virtual navigation? Perceptual simulation of what others see reflects their location in space but not their gaze. Cognition, 199, 104241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104241
Wilson, C., Soranzo, A., & Bertamini, M. (2017). Attentional interference is modulated by salience not sentience. Acta Psychologica, 178, 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.05.010