Please wait a minute...
心理学报  2018, Vol. 50 Issue (6): 622-636    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00622
     研究报告 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
虚拟仿真场景中威胁性视觉刺激搜索的注意偏向效应
袁小钧,崔晓霞,曹正操,阚红,王晓,汪亚珉()
首都师范大学心理学院, 北京市“学习与认知”重点实验室, 北京 100048
Attentional bias towards threatening visual stimuli in a virtual reality-based visual search task
Xiaojun YUAN,Xiaoxia CUI,Zhengcao CAO,Hong KAN,Xiao WANG,Yamin WANG()
Beijing Key Laboratory of “Learning & Cognition”, School of Psychology, Capital Normal University, Beijing 100048, China
全文: PDF(5374 KB)   HTML 评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要 

自?hman, Flykt和Esteves (2001)完成威胁性刺激引起注意偏向的经典实验后, 有不少实验重复了这一发现。进化心理学家据此将人对蛇与蜘蛛的注意偏向反应解释为早期人类适应野外环境的结果。然而已有实验中既没有野外环境, 也没有视觉搜索时的光流动态信息, 实验的生态效度存疑。本研究利用新近发展的虚拟现实技术, 模拟早期人类生存的丛林环境, 让被试以完全浸入式的方式来搜索丛林草地中的威胁性刺激(蛇、蜘蛛), 结果发现被试搜索威胁性刺激确实比非威胁性刺激(蘑菇、花、松鼠、蝉)要快。并且, 三维空间数据显示, 被试确认威胁性刺激的空间距离要显著远于非威胁性刺激。这是首次从时间与空间两个维度上揭示了人对威胁性刺激搜索的注意偏向加工。实验结果为威胁性刺激加工的进化心理学解释提供了新的事实依据。此外, 利用虚拟现实技术提高实验的生态效度的尝试也获得了初步进展。

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
袁小钧
崔晓霞
曹正操
阚红
王晓
汪亚珉
关键词 威胁性刺激注意偏向视觉搜索虚拟现实生态效度    
Abstract

Ever since ?hman, Flykt and Esteves published their classic study in 2001, many researchers have replicated their findings regarding attentional bias to threatening stimuli in visual perception research. Based on these findings, psychologists proposed a promising theory called predatory fear, in which the attentional bias to threatening animals is interpreted as evolutionarily adaptive behavior of early mammals and the ancestors of modern humans. However, from an evolutionary perspective, the lack of ecological validity of existing experiments inevitably attenuated the interpretation. The present study aimed to fill the gaps by repeating the classic work in a virtual reality environment.

A virtual reality grove was created with the Virtools virtual reality engine, in which jungles, trees, flowers, and weeds were arranged in the form of a wild grass field. The virtual reality grove was presented with an Oculus Rift DK 2 helmet. Forty participants were instructed to navigate along a path in the grove and search for threatening or non-threatening target stimuli. 3D models of a snake, a spider, a flower, a mushroom, a cicada, and a squirrel were used as stimuli in the search task, among which snake and spider were considered threatening stimuli. All the stimuli were shown in yellow and were assessed by twenty participants not included in the forty participants in search task to ensure they were of similar salience.

To examine attentional bias to threatening stimuli, two experiments were conducted in the same visual search task as reported by ?hman et al. In Experiment 1, as in ?hman et al., the snake or the spider was selected as a target stimulus, and thirteen copies of the flower or the mushroom were used as distracting stimuli, or other combinations of these. Twenty participants were individually presented with the virtual grove and instructed to passively wander along the path in the jungle to search for target stimuli. A fixed camera was set at a uniform speed to simulate the navigation in visual search task. Given that searching for animals took less time than searching for plants ( Soares et al, 2009), flowers and mushrooms were replaced with cicadas and squirrels in Experiment 2. The other twenty participants repeated the experiment procedure. In addition to response time (RT), response distance (RD) was also computed as a compensatory index.

In Experiment 1, the results of RTs revealed that the searching for threatening stimuli (snake and spider) is faster than searching for non-threatening stimuli (mushroom, flower). The RD values showed that participants found the threatening stimuli when they were farther away than the non-threatening stimuli. In Experiment 2, the same results were found even when the distracting stimuli were all animals. The RTs and RDs both confirmed that participants were better at finding snakes and spiders than finding flowers, mushrooms, cicadas, and squirrels.

The total results supported the hypothesis of predatory fear was relatively soundly and the attentional bias to threatening animals, especially snake and spider, was found to be likely to be caused by predatory fear as part of human cognition. These findings provide new evidence for the hypothesis of predatory fear from an evolutionary perspective. In addition, virtual reality was proven to be a suitable technique for assessing the ecological validity of psychological experiments.

Key wordsthreatening stimuli    attentional bias    visual search    virtual reality    ecological validity
收稿日期: 2016-11-28      出版日期: 2018-04-28
ZTFLH:  B842  
基金资助:北京市教育委员会面上项目(KM201610028018);北京市教育委员会市属高校创新能力提升计划资助项目资助(TJSH20161002801)
通讯作者: 汪亚珉     E-mail: wangym@cnu.edu.cn
引用本文:   
袁小钧, 崔晓霞, 曹正操, 阚红, 王晓, 汪亚珉. 虚拟仿真场景中威胁性视觉刺激搜索的注意偏向效应[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(6): 622-636.
Xiaojun YUAN, Xiaoxia CUI, Zhengcao CAO, Hong KAN, Xiao WANG, Yamin WANG. Attentional bias towards threatening visual stimuli in a virtual reality-based visual search task. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(6): 622-636.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00622      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2018/V50/I6/622
  视觉搜索实验中所使用的仿真丛林场景注:彩图见电子版, 下同
  搜索实验中所用刺激物模型及颜色对比注:依次为蛇、蜘蛛、花、蘑菇、松鼠、蝉, 其中花、蘑菇与蛇、蜘蛛匹配作为实验1的刺激材料, 松鼠、蝉与蛇、蜘蛛匹配作为实验2的材料。
  丛林草地上的路径及对所搜索目标物(蘑菇)进行评定时的3种条件注:固定路径摄像机行走的是中间的直线, 在小径的任意行走点上, 被试看到目标物的视线与固定路径之间的夹角为α
  反应距离计算示意图
因子 丛林搜索场景 Tomb Raider Half Life
存在感 3.83 3.00 3.93
空间存在感 3.83 3.06 3.99
沉浸感 3.31 2.40 3.26
真实感体验 3.04 1.92 2.34
  丛林搜索场景与国外虚拟现实游戏场景IGROUP评定结果比较
  刺激评定实验流程图
  物理显著性分析示意图
  实验1刺激材料评定实验反应时结果
位置 平均数(ms) 标准误
位置5 5306.80 122.41
位置6 5997.55 138.11
位置7 6912.65 119.33
位置15 4935.95 109.64
位置16 5983.80 101.94
位置17 6612.70 141.75
  不同位置反应时最小值(平均数、标准误)
  实验1视觉搜索实验被试错误率、反应时、反应距离(平均数±标准误)结果
  实验2刺激材料评定实验反应时结果
  实验2视觉搜索实验被试错误率、反应时、反应距离(平均数±标准误)结果
实验 蜘蛛 蘑菇 松鼠
实验1 0.605 (0.002) 0.606 (0.002) 0.605 (0.002) 0.602 (0.002)
实验2 0.605 (0.002) 0.606 (0.002) 0.611 (0.002) 0.605 (0.002)
  图片物理显著性的明度值平均数(括号内为标准误)
  实验中所用模型在搜索局部场景中的显著性上:实验1模型显著性, 下:实验2模型显著性)
[1] Buss, D. M . ( 1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
[2] Cisler J. M., Bacon A. K., & Williams N. L . ( 2009). Phenomenological characteristics of attentional biases towards threat: A critical review. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 33(2), 221-234.
pmid: 2901130
[3] Cisler J. M., & Koster E. H. W . ( 2010). Mechanisms of attentional biases towards threat in anxiety disorders: An integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 203-216.
pmid: 2814889
[4] Dudeney J., Sharpe L., & Hunt C . ( 2015). Attentional bias towards threatening stimuli in children with anxiety: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 40, 66-75.
pmid: 26071667
[5] Felnhofer A., Kothgassner O. D., Schmidt M., Heinzle A. K., Beutl L., Hlavacs H., & Kryspin-Exner I . ( 2015). Is virtual reality emotionally arousing? Investigating five emotion inducing virtual park scenarios. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 82, 48-56.
[6] Gibson, J. J . ( 1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
[7] Hansen C. H., & Hansen R. D . ( 1988). Finding the face in the crowd: An anger superiority effect. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54(6), 917-924.
pmid: 3397866
[8] Itti L., & Koch C . ( 2000). A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vision Research, 40(10-12), 1489-1506.
pmid: 1078865422
[9] Janczyk M., Augst S., & Kunde W . ( 2014). The locus of the emotional Stroop effect: A study with the PRP paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 151, 8-15.
pmid: 24904999
[10] Juth P., Lundqvist D., Karlsson A., & ?hman A . ( 2005). Looking for foes and friends: Perceptual and emotional factors when finding a face in the crowd. Emotion, 5(4), 379-395.
pmid: 16366743
[11] Ledoux, J. E . ( 2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 155-184.
[12] Lee D. N., & Kalmus H . ( 1980). The optic flow field: The foundation of vision [and discussion]. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 290(1038), 169-179.
[13] Lindsay P. H. , & Norman, D. A.( 1977) . Human information processing: An introduction to psychology New York: Academic Press An introduction to psychology. New York: Academic Press.
[14] LoBue, V. ( 2010). And along came a spider: An attentional bias for the detection of spiders in young children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 107(1), 59-66.
pmid: 20529694
[15] LoBue V., & Rakison D. H . ( 2013). What we fear most: A developmental advantage for threat-relevant stimuli. Developmental Review, 33(4), 285-303.
[16] Matsumoto, E. ( 2010). Bias in attending to emotional facial expressions: Anxiety and visual search efficiency. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(3), 414-424.
[17] Mogg K., & Bradley B. P . ( 2006). Time course of attentional bias for fear-relevant pictures in spider-fearful individuals. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 44(9), 1241-1250.
pmid: 16870133
[18] Mogg K., Bradley B. P., & Hallowell N . ( 1994). Attentional bias to threat: Roles of trait anxiety, stressful events, and awareness. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 47(4), 841-864.
pmid: 7809399
[19] ?hman, A. ( 2009). Of snakes and faces: An evolutionary perspective on the psychology of fear. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 50(6), 543-552.?hman, A., Flykt, A., & Esteves, F. (2001). Emotion drives attention: Detecting the snake in the grass. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(3), 466-478.
[20] ?hman A., Lundqvist D., & Esteves F . ( 2001). The face in the crowd revisited: A threat advantage with schematic stimuli. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 80(3), 381-396.
[21] ?hman A., & Mineka S . ( 2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108, 483-522.
[22] ?hman A., Soares S. C., Juth P., Lindstr?m B., & Esteves F . ( 2012). Evolutionary derived modulations of attention to two common fear stimuli: Serpents and hostile humans. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 17-32.
[23] Peira N., Golkar A., ?hman A., Anders S., & Wiens S . ( 2012). Emotional responses in spider fear are closely related to picture awareness. Cognition and Emotion, 26(2), 252-260.
pmid: 21973031
[24] Peng D. L. ( 2012). General psychology (4th ed.) . Beijing, China: Beijing Normal University Press.
[ 彭聃龄 . ( 2012). 普通心理学 (第4版). 北京: 北京师范大学出版社.]
[25] Savage R. A., Lipp O. V., Craig B. M., Becker S. I., & Horstmann G . ( 2013). In search of the emotional face: Anger versus happiness superiority in visual search. Emotion, 13(4), 758-768.
pmid: 23527503
[26] Schubert T., Friedmann F., & Regenbrecht H . ( 2001). The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence, 10(3), 266-281.
[27] Soares, S. C . ( 2012). The lurking snake in the grass: Interference of snake stimuli in visually taxing conditions. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(2), 187-197.
pmid: 22947633
[28] Soares S. C., Esteves F., Lundqvist D., & ?hman A . ( 2009). Some animal specific fears are more specific than others: Evidence from attention and emotion measures. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 47(12), 1032-1042.
pmid: 19695561
[29] Soares S. C., Lindstr?m B., Esteves F., & ?hman A . ( 2014). The hidden snake in the grass: Superior detection of snakes in challenging attentional conditions. PLoS One, 9(12), e114724.
pmid: 4262429
[30] Stormark K. M., & Hugdahl K . ( 1996). Peripheral cuing of covert spatial attention before and after emotional conditioning of the cue. International Journal of Neuroscience, 86(3-4), 225-240.
pmid: 8884393
[31] Stormark K. M., Nordby H., & Hugdahl K . ( 1995). Attentional shifts to emotionally charged cues: Behavioural and ERP data. Cognition & Emotion, 9(5), 507-523.
[32] Sun H. J., Carey D. P., & Goodale M. A . ( 1992). A mammalian model of optic-flow utilization in the control of locomotion. Experimental Brain Research, 91(1), 171-175.
pmid: 1301371
[33] Theeuwes, J. ( 2010). Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 77-99.
pmid: 20507828
[34] Thrasher C., & LoBue V . ( 2016). Do infants find snakes aversive? Infants' physiological responses to "fear-relevant" stimuli. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 142, 382-389.
pmid: 26483161
[35] Tooby J., & Cosmides L . ( 1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology & Sociobiology, 11(4-5), 375-424.
[36] Torralba A., Oliva A., Castelhano M. S., & Henderson J. M . ( 2006). Contextual guidance of eye movements and attention in real-world scenes: The role of global features in object search. Psychological Review, 113(4), 766-786.
[37] Tsotsos J. K., Culhane S. M., Kei W. W. Y., Lai Y. Z., Davis N., & Nuflo F . ( 1995). Modeling visual attention via selective tuning. Artificial Intelligence, 78(1-2), 507-545.
[38] Urech A., Krieger T., Chesham A., Mast F. W., & Berger T . ( 2015). Virtual reality-based attention bias modification training for social anxiety: A feasibility and proof of concept study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 6, 154.
pmid: 4623392
[39] van Le Q., Isbell L. A., Matsumoto J., Nguyen M., Hori E., Maior R. S., … Nishijo H . ( 2013). Pulvinar neurons reveal neurobiological evidence of past selection for rapid detection of snakes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(47), 19000-19005.
pmid: 24167268
[40] Vuilleumier P., Armony J. L., Driver J., & Dolan R. J . ( 2003). Distinct spatial frequency sensitivities for processing faces and emotional expressions. Nature Neuroscience, 6(6), 624-631.
pmid: 12740580
[41] Wang F. X., Li W. J., Yan Z. Q., Duan Z. H., & Li H . ( 2015). Children's attention detection to snakes: Evidence from eye movements. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(6), 774-786.
[ 王福兴, 李文静, 颜志强, 段朝辉, 李卉 . ( 2015). 幼儿对威胁性刺激蛇的注意觉察: 来自眼动证据. 心理学报, 47(6), 774-786.]
[42] Yiend, J. ( 2010). The effects of emotion on attention: A review of attentional processing of emotional information. Cognition & Emotion, 24(1), 3-47.
[43] Zhang Y., Luo Y., Zhao S. Y., Chen W., & Li H . ( 2014). Attentional bias towards threat: Facilitated attentional orienting or impaired attentional disengagement. Advances in Psychological Science, 22(7), 1129-1138.
[ 张禹, 罗禹, 赵守盈, 陈维, 李红 . ( 2014). 对威胁刺激的注意偏向: 注意定向加速还是注意解除困难?. 心理科学进展, 22(7), 1129-1138.]
[1] 胡金生, 李骋诗, 王琦, 李松泽, 李涛涛, 刘淑清. 孤独症青少年的情绪韵律注意偏向缺陷:低效率的知觉模式[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(6): 637-646.
[2] 李毕琴, 李玲, 王爱君, 张明.  言语工作记忆内容在语义水平的注意捕获[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(5): 483-493.
[3] 李杨卓, 钱浩悦, 朱敏, 高湘萍.  自我相关信息对视觉搜索主动抑制的易化作用[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(1): 28-35.
[4] 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.
[5] 张豹;胡岑楼;黄赛. 认知控制在工作记忆表征引导注意中的作用:来自眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(9): 1105-1118.
[6] 周希;宛小昂;杜頔康;熊异雷;黄蔚欣. 不连续虚拟现实空间中的再定向[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(8): 924-932.
[7] 王福兴;李文静;颜志强;段朝辉;李卉. 幼儿对威胁性刺激蛇的注意觉察:来自眼动证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(6): 774-786.
[8] 过继成思;宛小昂. 虚拟路径整合的学习效应[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(6): 711-720.
[9] 寇慧;苏艳华;罗小春;陈红. 相貌负面身体自我女性对相貌词的注意偏向眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(10): 1213-1222.
[10] 牟兵兵;宛小昂. 视觉搜索中的情绪干扰项预习效应[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(11): 1603-1612.
[11] 林欧;王正科;孟祥芝. 汉语发展性阅读障碍儿童的视知觉学习[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(7): 762-772.
[12] 张豹;黄赛;祁禄. 工作记忆表征引导视觉注意选择的眼动研究[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(2): 139-148.
[13] 王敬欣;贾丽萍;白学军;罗跃嘉. 返回抑制过程中情绪面孔加工优先:ERPs研究[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(1): 1-10.
[14] 翁春燕,陈红,朱岚. 限制性饮食者对食物线索的注意偏向:基于目标矛盾理论模型[J]. 心理学报, 2012, 44(5): 680-689.
[15] 李海江,杨娟,贾磊,张庆林. 不同自尊水平者的注意偏向[J]. 心理学报, 2011, 43(08): 907-916.
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