心理科学进展 ›› 2021, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (3): 450-459.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.00450
收稿日期:
2020-05-26
出版日期:
2021-03-15
发布日期:
2021-01-26
通讯作者:
李晶
E-mail:lij@njnu.edu.cn
基金资助:
Received:
2020-05-26
Online:
2021-03-15
Published:
2021-01-26
Contact:
LI Jing
E-mail:lij@njnu.edu.cn
摘要:
人类如何处理并交换空间信息是现有空间认知领域的热点问题, 这一过程主要是通过涉空对话实现的。在涉空对话中存在着表征对齐现象, 互动双方在对话中会实现空间术语、空间参照系及空间视角等表征的对齐。空间场景物理特征和人与人的协作都会影响表征对齐的程度, 而实现表征对齐的生理基础是对话双方神经活动的一致性。未来可继续探究表征对齐的作用机制, 如与个体空间偏好的关系, 以及合作伙伴特征如何影响表征对齐的程度等。
中图分类号:
余萌, 李晶. (2021). 涉空对话中表征对齐的产生机制. 心理科学进展 , 29(3), 450-459.
YU Meng, LI Jing. (2021). The mechanism of representational alignment in spatial dialogue. Advances in Psychological Science, 29(3), 450-459.
[1] | 窦文菲, 胡清芬. (2018). 语言线索对空间关系表征的影响及其机制. 心理发展与教育, 34(5), 633-640. |
[2] | 张克定(著), 王寅(主编).(2016). 空间关系构式的认知研究. 北京: 高等教育出版社. |
[3] | Andonova, E.(2010). Aligning Spatial Perspective in Route Descriptions. In: C. Hölscher, T. F. Shipley, B. M. Olivetti, J. A. Bateman, & N. S. Newcombe (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 6222:Spatial Cognition VII: International Conference on Spatial Cognition(pp. 125-138). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. |
[4] | Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A.(2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75(2), 13-25. |
[5] | Burigo, M., & Schultheis, H. (2018). The effects of direction and orientation of located objects on spatial language comprehension. Language and Cognition, 10(2), 298-328. |
[6] |
Christensen, P., Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K. (2016). Environmental constraints shaping constituent order in emerging communication systems: Structural iconicity, interactive alignment and conventionalization. Cognition, 146, 67-80.
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.09.004 URL pmid: 26402649 |
[7] | Clark, H. H.(1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. |
[8] | Clark, H. H., & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22(1), 1-39. |
[9] |
Coventry, K. R., Andonova, E., Tenbrink, T., Gudde, H. B., & Engelhardt, P. E.(2018). Cued by What We See and Hear: Spatial Reference Frame Use in Language. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1287. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01287
URL pmid: 30150947 |
[10] | Coventry, K. R., Griffiths, D., & Hamilton, C. J. (2014). Spatial demonstratives and perceptual space: Describing and remembering object location. Cognitive Psychology, 69, 46-70. |
[11] | Coventry, K. R., Tenbrink, T., & Bateman, J. (Eds.).(2009) Spatial language and dialogue (Vol. 3). OUP Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
[12] | Dobnik, S. (2012). Coordinating spatial perspective in discourse. In Proceedings of the 4th Swedish Language Technology Conference (SLTC 2012)(pp. 21-22). |
[13] | Dobnik, S., Kelleher, J. D., & Koniaris, C. (2014). Priming and alignment of frame of reference in situated conversation. Proceedings of Dial-Watt-Semdial, 9, 43-52. |
[14] |
Fusaroli, R., & Tylén, K. (2016). Investigating Conversational Dynamics: Interactive Alignment, Interpersonal Synergy, and Collective Task Performance. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 145-171.
URL pmid: 25988263 |
[15] |
Galati, A., & Avraamides, M. N.(2013). Flexible spatial perspective-taking: Conversational partners weigh multiple cues in collaborative tasks. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 618. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00618
URL pmid: 24133432 |
[16] |
Galati, A., & Avraamides, M. N. (2015). Social and representational cues jointly influence spatial perspective-taking. Cognitive Science, 39(4), 739-765.
URL pmid: 25243841 |
[17] | Galati, A., Dale, R., & Duran, N. D. (2019). Social and configural effects on the cognitive dynamics of perspective-taking. Journal of Memory and Language, 104, 1-24. |
[18] | Galati, A., Diavastou, A., & Avraamides, M. N. (2018). Signatures of cognitive difficulty in perspective-taking: is the egocentric perspective always the easiest to adopt? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(4), 467-493. |
[19] | Galati, A., Panagiotou, E., Tenbrink, T., & Avraamides, M. N. (2017). Dynamic strategy selection in collaborative spatial tasks. Discourse Processes, 55(8), 1-23. |
[20] | Galati, A., Symeonidou, A., & Avraamides, M. N. (2020). Do aligned bodies align minds? The partners’ body alignment as a constraint on spatial perspective use. Discourse Processes, 57(2), 99-121. |
[21] |
Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination. Cognition, 27(2), 181-218.
URL pmid: 3691025 |
[22] | Gramann, K. (2013). Embodiment of spatial reference frames and individual differences in reference frame proclivity. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 13(1), 1-25. |
[23] | Jiang, J., Dai, B., Peng, D. L., Zhu, C. Z., & Lu, C. (2012). Neural synchronization during face-to-face communication. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(45), 16064-16069. |
[24] |
Johannsen, K., de Ruiter, J. P.(2013). Reference frame selection in dialog: Priming or preference. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 667. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00667
URL pmid: 24137122 |
[25] | Kuhlen, A. K., & Brennan, S. E. (2010). Anticipating distracted addressees: How speakers’ expectations and addressees’ feedback influence storytelling. Discourse Processes, 47(7), 567-587. |
[26] | Levinson, S. C.(2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. |
[27] | Liang, H. N., Lu, F. Y., Shi, Y. W., Nanjappan, V., & Papangelis, K. (2019). Evaluating the effects of collaboration and competition in navigation tasks and spatial knowledge acquisition within virtual reality environments. Future Generation Computer Systems, 95, 855-866. |
[28] | Liu, W., Branigan, H. P., Zheng, L. F., Long, Y. H., Bai, X. L., Li, K. Y., … Lu, C. M. (2019). Shared neural representations of syntax during online dyadic communication. NeuroImage, 198, 63-72. |
[29] |
Liu, Y. C., Piazza, E. A., Simony, E., Shewokis, P. A., Onaral, B., Hasson, U., & Ayaz, H. (2017). Measuring speaker- listener neural coupling with functional near infrared spectroscopy. Scientific Reports, 7, 43293. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43293
URL pmid: 28240295 |
[30] |
Menenti, L., Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. C.(2012). Toward a neural basis of interactive alignment in conversation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 185. https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00185
URL pmid: 22754517 |
[31] | Metzing, C., & Brennan, S. E. (2003). When conceptual pacts are broken: Partner-specific effects on the comprehension of referring expressions. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(2), 201-213. |
[32] | Milleville-Pennel, I., Mars, F., & Pouliquen-Lardy, L. (2020). Sharing spatial information in a virtual environment: How do visual cues and configuration influence spatial coding and mental workload? Virtual Reality, 24, 695-712. |
[33] | Müller, J., Rädle, R., & Reiterer, H. (2017, May). Remote collaboration with mixed reality displays: How shared virtual landmarks facilitate spatial referencing. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(pp. 6481-6486). New York, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. |
[34] | Nölle, J., Fusaroli, R., Mills, G. J., & Tylén, K. (2020). Language as shaped by the environment: linguistic construal in a collaborative spatial task. Palgrave Communications, 6(1), 1-10. |
[35] | Özyürek, A. (2002). Do speakers design their cospeech gestures for their addressees? The effects of addressee location on representational gestures. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 688-704. |
[36] | Pardo, J. S., Gibbons, R., Suppes, A., & Krauss, R. M. (2012). Phonetic convergence in college roommates. Journal of Phonetics, 40(1), 190-197. |
[37] | Peacock, C. E., & Ekstrom, A. D. (2018). Verbal cues flexibly transform spatial representations in human memory. Memory, 27(4), 465-479. |
[38] | Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169-226. |
[39] | Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2006). Alignment as the basis for successful communication. Research on Language and Computation, 4(2-3), 203-228. |
[40] | Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329-347. |
[41] | Pouliquen-Lardy, L., Mars, F., Guillaume, F., & Milleville- Pennel, I. (2015). Virtual collaboration: Effect of spatial configuration on spatial statements production. Cognitive Processing, 16(1), 337-342. |
[42] | Pouliquen-Lardy, L., Milleville-Pennel, I., Guillaume, F., & Mars, F. (2016). Remote collaboration in virtual reality: Asymmetrical effects of task distribution on spatial processing and mental workload. Virtual Reality, 20(4), 213-220. |
[43] | Rocca, R., Wallentin, M., Vesper, C., & Tylén, K. (2018, July). This and that back in context: Grounding demonstrative reference in manual and social affordances. Paper presented at the meeting of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 960-965), Madison, Wisconsin, USA. |
[44] | Scalise, R., Li, S., Admoni, H., Rosenthal, S., & Srinivasa, S. S. (2018). Natural language instructions for human-robot collaborative manipulation. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 37(6), 558-565. |
[45] | Schafer, W. A., & Bowman, D. A. (2004). Evaluating the effects of frame of reference on spatial collaboration using desktop collaborative virtual environments. Virtual Reality, 7(3-4), 164-174. |
[46] | Schober, M. (2009). Spatial dialogue between partners with mismatched abilities. In, K. Coventry, T. A. Tenbrink & J. Bateman (Eds.), Spatial Language and Dialogue (Vol 3, pp.23-39). Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
[47] | Schole, G., Tenbrink, T., Andonova, E., & Coventry, K. R. (2018, July). Object Orientation in Dialogue: A Case Study of Spatial Inference Processes. Paper presented at the meeting of the 11th International Conference, Spatial Cognition 2018, Tübingen, Germany. |
[48] |
Schoot, L., Hagoort, P., & Segaert, K.(2019). Stronger syntactic alignment in the presence of an interlocutor. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 685. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2019.00685
URL pmid: 30971995 |
[49] |
Schoot, L., Heyselaar, E., Hagoort, P., & Segaert, K. (2016b). Does syntactic alignment effectively influence how speakers are perceived by their conversation partner? PLOS One, 11(4), e0153521. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153521
URL pmid: 27128682 |
[50] | Schoot, L., Stolk, A., Hagoort, P., Garrod, S., Segaert, K., & Menenti, L. (2016a). Finding your way in the zoo: How situation model alignment affects interpersonal neural coupling. Poster presented at the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society for the Neurobiology of Language (SNL 2016), London, UK. |
[51] | Silbert, L. J., Honey, C. J., Simony, E., Poeppel, D., & Hasson, U. (2014). Coupled neural systems underlie the production and comprehension of naturalistic narrative speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(43), E4687-E4696. |
[52] | Stephens, G. J., Silbert, L. J., & Hasson, U. (2010). Speaker- listener neural coupling underlies successful communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(32), 14425-14430. |
[53] | Stolk, A., Verhagen, L., & Toni, I. (2016). Conceptual alignment: How brains achieve mutual understanding. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(3), 180-191. |
[54] | Tenbrink, T., Andonova, E., Schole, G., & Coventry, K. R. (2016). Communicative success in spatial dialogue: The impact of functional features and dialogue strategies. Language and Speech, 60(2), 318-329. |
[55] | Vorwerg, C. (2009). Consistency in successive spatial utterance. In, K. Coventry, T. A. Tenbrink & J. Bateman (Eds.), Spatial language and dialogue (Vol.4, pp.40-55). Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
[56] | Watson, M. E., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (2004). Alignment of reference frames in dialogue. In K. D. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 26. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9t95b48d |
[57] | Watson, M. E., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P.(2009). Why dialogue methods are important for investigating spatial language. In K. Coventry, T. A. Tenbrink & J. Bateman (Eds.), Spatial language and dialogue (Vol.2, pp.8-22). Oxford: Oxford University Press. |
[1] | 叶舒琪, 尹俊婷, 李招贤, 罗俊龙. 情绪对直觉与分析加工的影响机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(5): 736-746. |
[2] | 李亚丹, 杜颖, 谢聪, 刘春宇, 杨毅隆, 李阳萍, 邱江. 语义距离与创造性思维关系的元分析[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(4): 519-534. |
[3] | 余婕, 陈有国. 时空干扰效应:基于贝叶斯模型的解释[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(4): 597-607. |
[4] | 王勇丽, 葛胜男, Lancy Lantin Huang, 万勤, 卢海丹. 言语想象的神经机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(4): 608-621. |
[5] | 杨庆, 李亚琴. 不确定是坏的么?不确定状态中的错误加工特点及其解释机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(3): 338-349. |
[6] | 王旭东, 何雅吉, 范会勇, 罗扬眉, 陈煦海. 人际愤怒的利与弊:来自元分析的证据[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(3): 386-401. |
[7] | 李清扬, 尹俊婷, 罗俊龙. 才思泉涌“举步”间:体育运动对创造性思维的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(3): 455-466. |
[8] | 陈子炜, 付迪, 刘勋. 错认总比错过好——面孔视错觉的发生机制及其应用[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(2): 240-255. |
[9] | 王松雪, 程思, 蒋挺, 刘勋, 张明霞. 外在奖赏对陈述性记忆的影响[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(1): 78-86. |
[10] | 谢才凤, 邬家骅, 许丽颖, 喻丰, 张语嫣, 谢莹莹. 算法决策趋避的过程动机理论[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023, 31(1): 60-77. |
[11] | 叶伟豪 于美琪 张利会 高琪 傅明珠 卢家楣. 精准的意义:负性情绪粒度的作用机制与干预[J]. 心理科学进展, 0, (): 0-0. |
[12] | 朱传林, 刘电芝, 罗文波. 情绪体验影响估算策略运用的认知与脑机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(12): 2639-2649. |
[13] | 史汉文, 李雨桐, 隋雪. 情绪词类型效应:区分情绪标签词和情绪负载词的行为和神经活动证据[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(12): 2696-2707. |
[14] | 陈玉田, 陈睿, 李鹏. 工作记忆中“组块”概念的演化及理论模型[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(12): 2708-2717. |
[15] | 时慧颖, 汤洁, 刘萍萍. 眼睛效应不稳定与感知规范:一个新视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(12): 2718-2734. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||