Please wait a minute...
心理学报
  论文 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
多身份追踪中基于表情特征的分组效应
雷寰宇1;魏柳青1;吕创1;张学民1,2,3;闫晓倩1,4
(1北京师范大学心理学院, 应用实验心理北京市重点实验室, 北京 100875)
(2北京师范大学认知神经科学与学习国家重点实验室, IDG/McGovern脑科学研究所, 北京 100875)
(3脑与学习协同创新中心, 北京 100875) (4约克大学心理学院, 约克 YO10 5DD)
Expression-based grouping in multiple identity tracking
LEI Huanyu1; WEI Liuqing1; LYU Chuang1; ZHANG Xuemin1,2,3; YAN Xiaoqian1,4
(1 School of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China)
(2 National Key Lab of Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning & IDG/McGovern Institute for Brain Research, Beijing 100875, China)
(3 Center for Collaboration and Innovation in Brain and Learning Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China)
(4 Department of Psychology, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK)
全文: PDF(455 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 

探讨了表情因素作为身份特征对多身份追踪中分组效应的影响。采用多身份追踪范式, 8个客体为表情图片(正性、负性、中性)其中4个为目标, 对45名被试进行了有无眉毛线索对追踪表现影响的测查。实验条件分别为:目标表情与非目标表情完全不相同组(4水平, 简称分组)、目标表情与非目标表情都由两种相同数量的表情混合组成(3水平, 简称配对)与基线组(8个客体表情相同)。发现分组水平的成绩显著优于基线组, 配对水平的成绩显著低于基线组, 并表现出了负性表情的追踪优势; 另外, 有无眉毛线索对追踪表现无显著影响。这一结果说明多身份追踪中存在基于表情特征的分组效应, 负性表情的分组知觉高于正性表情。

服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
雷寰宇
魏柳青
吕创
张学民
闫晓倩
关键词 多身份追踪分组效应表情情绪面孔搜索不对称性    
Abstract
The multiple-object tracking (MOT) task, proposed by Pylyshyn and Storm (1988), requires participants to simultaneously track the positions of several visual objects as they move among identical distractors. Yantis (1992) found that participants used perceptual grouping strategy when tracking multiple moving objects, indicating that moving objects with different identities could facilitate using of grouping strategy to help tracking. In this present study, we used facial expressions of emotions as object identities to investigate grouping strategies during multiple-identity tracking (MIT). With facial expressions of emotion playing an important role in daily life, understanding whether or not the processing of emotions would affect visual objects tracking is a topic of both theoretical and practical importance, compared with studies using physical properties as object identities.
There are two experiments in the present study, where the only difference between the two experiments was that there was no eyebrows in the schematic faces used in the second experiment, in order to investigate whether eyebrows affected facial expression processing. We recruited 29 (11 males) and 16 (7 males) undergraduates from the universities in Beijing in Experiment1 and Experiment2, respectively. All the participants gave their consent form and filled in the Self-rating Depression Scale and State-Trait-Anxiety Inventory prior to the experiments. In each trial, eight objects appeared on the screen as blank squares, and four of eight occurred with red frames outside for 1.5 seconds to indicate targets. After that, all the objects turned into expression pictures and started to move randomly and independently for 5 to 6 seconds, and then turned back into blank objects after stopped. The participants’ tasks were first to select four targets and then to report the facial expression of each of the four targets they selected. There are three conditions: (1) grouping (Target Grouping, TG); (2) pairing (Target-Distractor Grouping, TDG); and (3) homogenous, in which the identity of all the objects was always the same expression (positive, negative, or neutral). TG condition included subcategories of pairing of identities. There were four conditions, each depicting one of the following: (1) positive targets, negative distractors; (2) positive targets, neutral distractors; (3) negative targets, positive distractors; and (4) negative targets, neutral distractors. While three subcategories were included in the TDG condition: (1) positive and neutral targets (and distractors), (2) positive and negative targets (and distractors), (3) negative and neutral targets (and distractors). We then did relevant analyses to answer the following three questions: 1) did grouping strategy improve tracking performance compared to homogenous condition? 2) did pairing strategy affect the overall tracking performance? 3) did eyebrows of the face images affect facial expression processing which further affect tracking performance?
We found similar results in the two experiments: (1) grouping improved tracking performance significantly, compared with homogenous condition; (2) targets with negative expression improved tracking performance significantly, compared with either positive targets or homogenous conditions, indicating an attention bias to negative expression; (3) shared identities between targets and distractors impaired tracking performance, compared with homogenous condition; (4) absence of eyebrows in facial images did not affect processing of negative expressions.
In conclusion, we examined grouping strategy in MIT using facial expression as object identities. Our results showed that targets with negative expressions improved tracking performance significantly compared with positive and neural expressions, indicating an attention bias to negative attention. People can not only effectively use location and physical properties information of objects during multiple objects tracking found in previous studies, but also more ecological facial expression information. Our study also provides a new way of investigating perception of facial expressions of emotions in dynamic scenes.
Key wordsmultiple identity tracking    grouping effect    expression    search asymmetry of emotional faces.
收稿日期: 2014-11-05      出版日期: 2016-02-25
基金资助:

国家自然科学基金项目“多目标视觉追踪中注意分配的认知神经机制研究” (31271083)和国家重点基础研究计划(973项目) (2011CB711000)资助。

通讯作者: 张学民, E-mail: xmzhang@bnu.edu.cn   
引用本文:   
雷寰宇;魏柳青;吕创;张学民;闫晓倩. 多身份追踪中基于表情特征的分组效应[J]. 心理学报, 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.00141.
LEI Huanyu; WEI Liuqing; LYU Chuang; ZHANG Xuemin; YAN Xiaoqian. Expression-based grouping in multiple identity tracking. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(2): 141-152.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2016.00141      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2016/V48/I2/141
[1] 谢志鹏;汪涛. 产品也会皱眉头?产品的“侵略性表情” 对消费者的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(5): 680-691.
[2] 孙俊才; 石荣. 哭泣表情面孔的注意偏向:眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(2): 155-163.
[3] 邱方晖;罗跃嘉;贾世伟. 个体攻击性对愤怒表情类别知觉的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(8): 946-956.
[4] 罗利;黄敏儿. 情绪调节在特质与情绪间中介效应模型的年龄差异[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(11): 1455-1466.
[5] 张丹丹;赵婷;柳昀哲;陈玉明. 恐惧情绪面孔和身体姿势加工的比较:事件相关电位研究[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(8): 963-970.
[6] 白田;吕创;魏柳青;周义斌;张学民. 目标与非目标身份特征的范畴间差异对多身份追踪的促进作用[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(2): 203-211.
[7] 杨亚平;徐强;张林;邓培状;梁宁建. 场景的不同空间频率信息对面部表情加工的影响:来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(12): 1433-1444.
[8] 张美晨;魏萍;张钦. 阈上阈下不同面孔表情下的注视线索提示效应[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(11): 1309-1317.
[9] 吴彬星;张智君;孙雨生. 面孔熟悉度对面孔性别与表情相互作用的调节[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(10): 1201-1212.
[10] 汪亚珉,傅小兰. 区分度在面部表情与面孔身份识别交互中的作用[J]. , 2007, 39(02): 191-200.
[11] 隋雪,任延涛. 面部表情识别的即时加工过程[J]. , 2007, 39(01): 64-70.
[12] 孙绍邦,孟昭兰. “面部反馈假设”的检验研究[J]. , 1993, 25(03): 55-61.
[13] 徐向东,杨景泉,吕淑云. 精神分裂症病人对成人面部表情的辨别[J]. , 1992, 24(03): 83-91.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn