心理学报 ›› 2022, Vol. 54 ›› Issue (1): 12-24.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.00012
林静1, 黄量杰成1, 何耘丰1, 段继鹏2(), 尹军1(
)
收稿日期:
2020-08-29
出版日期:
2022-01-25
发布日期:
2021-11-26
通讯作者:
段继鹏,尹军
E-mail:jipengduan@outlook.com;yinjun1@nbu.edu.cn
基金资助:
LIN Jing1, HUANGLIANG Jiecheng1, HE Yunfeng1, DUAN Jipeng2(), YIN Jun1(
)
Received:
2020-08-29
Online:
2022-01-25
Published:
2021-11-26
Contact:
DUAN Jipeng,YIN Jun
E-mail:jipengduan@outlook.com;yinjun1@nbu.edu.cn
摘要:
与已有研究着重考察如何识别客体导向性意图(动作以物理对象为目标, 而不涉及其他人)不同, 本研究对人们如何识别社会性意图(动作以指向社会主体为目标以影响对方的交互行为)进行了探讨。基于两交互主体在整体层面应遵循效用最大化的分析, 提出当A协助B达成目标状态所需要的成本小于B单独实现该目标状态所需要的成本时(简称为成本最小化信息), 其可被识别为具有社会性意图。通过在B面前设置栅栏的方法操纵成本最小化信息, 以指示不同意图类型的脑电μ抑制程度、对不同变化的敏感性(辨别力)为指标, 对该假设进行了检验。结果显示, 相比客体导向性意图的控制条件(即A将目标物苹果放置在石头前), 当A将目标物苹果放置在被栅栏挡住的B前, 其动作可减少B单独获取该苹果的动作成本, 即符合成本最小化条件时, μ的抑制程度更高(实验1), 且对结构改变(某两个动画中充当相同角色的智能体互换)的辨别力更强, 但对角色交换(某个动画中两个智能体的角色交换)的辨别力更弱(实验3a); 而当栅栏不存在时, 虽然A的运动路径与实验1相同, 但A将苹果放置在B前的成本大于B自身获取苹果的成本, 即不符合成本最小化条件, 条件间μ抑制的差异消失(实验2), 且对不同动作模式中变化的辨别相当(实验3b)。鉴于已有研究表明社会性意图所诱发的μ抑制强于客体导向性意图, 且人们对存在社会性意图的两个智能体间的结构改变更容易辨别, 而对角色交换不敏感, 故上述结果揭示, 两个个体的行为是否满足成本最小化影响人们对动作意图的识别, 支持成本最小化信息是社会性意图识别线索的观点。
中图分类号:
林静, 黄量杰成, 何耘丰, 段继鹏, 尹军. (2022). 基于成本最小化信息的社会性意图识别:来自脑电和行为的证据. 心理学报, 54(1), 12-24.
LIN Jing, HUANGLIANG Jiecheng, HE Yunfeng, DUAN Jipeng, YIN Jun. (2022). The recognition of social intentions based on the information of minimizing costs: EEG and behavioral evidences. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(1), 12-24.
[1] |
Auvray, M., Lenay, C., & Stewart, J. (2009). Perceptual interactions in a minimalist virtual environment. New Ideas in Psychology, 27(1), 32-47.
doi: 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.12.002 URL |
[2] |
Blakemore, S. J., & Decety, J. (2001). From the perception of action to the understanding of intention. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2(8), 561-567.
pmid: 11483999 |
[3] |
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433-436.
pmid: 9176952 |
[4] |
Buon, M., Jacob, P., Loissel, E., & Dupoux, E. (2013). A non- mentalistic cause-based heuristic in human social evaluations. Cognition, 126(2), 149-155.
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.006 URL |
[5] |
Canessa, N., Alemanno, F., Riva, F., Zani, A., Proverbio, A. M., Mannara, N., ... Cappa, S. (2012). The neural bases of social intention understanding: The role of interaction goals. PLoS ONE, 7(7), e42347.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042347 URL |
[6] |
Centelles, L., Assaiante, C., Nazarian, B., Anton, J. L., & Schmitz, C. (2011). Recruitment of both the mirror and the mentalizing networks when observing social interactions depicted by point-lights: A neuroimaging study. PLoS ONE, 6(1), e15749.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015749 URL |
[7] |
Csibra, G., Bíró, S., Koós, O., & Gergely, G. (2003). One- year-old infants use teleological representations of actions productively. Cognitive Science, 27(1), 111-133.
doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2701_4 URL |
[8] |
Cuevas, K., Cannon, E. N., Yoo, K., & Fox, N. A. (2014). The infant EEG mu rhythm: Methodological considerations and best practices. Developmental Review, 34(1), 26-43.
doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2013.12.001 URL |
[9] |
de Jaegher, H., Di Paolo, E., & Gallagher, S. (2010). Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 441-447.
doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.009 pmid: 20674467 |
[10] |
Ding, X. W., Gao, Z. F., & Shen, M. W. (2017). Two equals one: Two human actions during social interaction are grouped as one unit in working memory. Psychological Science, 28(9), 1311-1320.
doi: 10.1177/0956797617707318 URL |
[11] |
Duan, J. P., Yang, Z. X., He, X. Y., Shao, M. X., & Yin, J. (2018). Automatic attribution of social coordination information to chasing scenes: Evidence from mu suppression. Experimental Brain Research, 236(1), 117-127.
doi: 10.1007/s00221-017-5111-4 URL |
[12] |
Fox, N. A., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Yoo, K. H., Bowman, L. C., Cannon, E. N., Vanderwert, R. E., ... van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2016). Assessing human mirror activity with EEG mu rhythm: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 142(3), 291-313.
doi: 10.1037/bul0000031 URL |
[13] |
Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological reasoning in infancy: The naïve theory of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 287-292.
pmid: 12860186 |
[14] | Gergely, G., & Jacob, P. (2012). Reasoning about instrumental and communicative agency in human infancy. In F. Xu & T. Kushnir (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior: Rational constructivism in cognitive development (Vol. 43, pp. 59-94). Waltham, MA: Academic Press. |
[15] |
Heider, F., & Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology, 57(2), 243-259.
doi: 10.2307/1416950 URL |
[16] | Heineman-Pieper, J. (2009). Reclaiming responsibility: New foundations for a science of and by persons. Saarbrücken Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller. |
[17] |
Hobbs, K., & Spelke, E. (2015). Goal attributions and instrumental helping at 14 and 24 months of age. Cognition, 142, 44-59.
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.03.014 URL |
[18] |
Jara-Ettinger, J., Gweon, H., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Schulz, L. E. (2015). Children’s understanding of the costs and rewards underlying rational action. Cognition, 140, 14-23.
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.03.006 pmid: 25867996 |
[19] |
Klimesch, W., Sauseng, P., Hanslmayr, S., Gruber, W., & Freunberger, R. (2007). Event-related phase reorganization may explain evoked neural dynamics. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 31(7), 1003-1016.
doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.03.005 URL |
[20] |
Kourtis, D., Woźniak, M., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2019). Evidence for we-representations during joint action planning. Neuropsychologia, 131, 73-83.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2019.05.029 URL |
[21] |
Maris, E., & Oostenveld, R. (2007). Nonparametric statistical testing of EEG- and MEG-data. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 164(1), 177-190.
pmid: 17517438 |
[22] | Miller, S. (2001). Social action: A teleological account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. |
[23] |
Muthukumaraswamy, S. D., Johnson, B. W., & McNair, N. A. (2004). Mu rhythm modulation during observation of an object-directed grasp. Cognitive Brain Research, 19(2), 195-201.
pmid: 15019715 |
[24] |
Oberman, L. M., Hubbard, E. M., McCleery, J. P., Altschuler, E. L., Ramachandran, V. S., & Pineda, J. A. (2005). EEG evidence for mirror neuron dysfunction in autism spectrum disorders. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(2), 190-198.
doi: 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.01.014 URL |
[25] | Oberman, L. M., Pineda, J. A., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2007). The human mirror neuron system: A link between action observation and social skills. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 2(1), 62-66. |
[26] |
Papeo, L. (2020). Twos in human visual perception. Cortex, 132, 473-478.
doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2020.06.005 URL |
[27] |
Perry, A., Stein, L., & Bentin, S. (2011). Motor and attentional mechanisms involved in social interaction-evidence from mu and alpha EEG suppression. NeuroImage, 58(3), 895- 904.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.060 pmid: 21742042 |
[28] |
Pfurtscheller, G., & Lopes da Silva, F. H. (1999). Event- related EEG/MEG synchronization and desynchronization: Basic principles. Clinical Neurophysiology, 110(11), 1842- 1857.
pmid: 10576479 |
[29] |
Pineda, J. O. A., & Oberman, L. M. (2006). What goads cigarette smokers to smoke? Neural adaptation and the mirror neuron system. Brain Research, 1121(1), 128-135.
pmid: 17045248 |
[30] |
Pomiechowska, B., & Csibra, G. (2017). Motor activation during action perception depends on action interpretation. Neuropsychologia, 105, 84-91.
doi: S0028-3932(17)30039-8 pmid: 28189494 |
[31] |
Sedikides, C., Olsen, N., & Reis, H. T. (1993). Relationships as natural categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 71-82.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.64.1.71 URL |
[32] |
Sherman, S. J., Castelli, L., & Hamilton, D. L. (2002). The spontaneous use of a group typology as an organizing principle in memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 328-342.
pmid: 11902620 |
[33] |
Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(1), 34-50.
doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.117.1.34 URL |
[34] |
Stahl, A. E., & Feigenson, L. (2014). Social knowledge facilitates chunking in infancy. Child Development, 85(4), 1477-1490.
doi: 10.1111/cdev.2014.85.issue-4 URL |
[35] |
Suzuki, S., & Cavanagh, P. (1995). Facial organization blocks access to low-level features: An object inferiority effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 901-913.
doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.21.4.901 URL |
[36] |
Tatone, D., Geraci, A., & Csibra, G. (2015). Giving and taking: Representational building blocks of active resource-transfer events in human infants. Cognition, 137, 47-62.
doi: S0010-0277(14)00287-X pmid: 25614012 |
[37] |
Török, G., Pomiechowska, B., Csibra, G., & Sebanz, N. (2019). Rationality in joint action: Maximizing coefficiency in coordination. Psychological Science, 30(6), 930-941.
doi: 10.1177/0956797619842550 URL |
[38] | Ullman, T. D., Baker, C. L., Macindoe, O., Evans, O., Goodman, N. D., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2009). Help or hinder: Bayesian models of social goal inference. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 22, 1874-1882. |
[39] |
Ulloa, E. R., & Pineda, J. A. (2007). Recognition of point-light biological motion: Mu rhythms and mirror neuron activity. Behavioural Brain Research, 183(2), 188-194.
doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2007.06.007 URL |
[40] |
Vestner, T., Tipper, S. P., Hartley, T., Over, H., & Rueschemeyer, S. A. (2019). Bound together: Social binding leads to faster processing, spatial distortion, and enhanced memory of interacting partners. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(7), 1251-1268.
doi: 10.1037/xge0000545 URL |
[41] |
Yin, J., Ding, X. W., Xu, H. K., Zhang, F., & Shen, M. (2017). Social coordination information in dynamic chase modulates EEG Mu rhythm. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1-9.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-016-0028-x URL |
[42] |
Yin, J., Ding, X. W., Zhou, J. F., Shui, R., Li, X. Y., & Shen, M. W. (2013). Social grouping: Perceptual grouping of objects by cooperative but not competitive relationships in dynamic chase. Cognition, 129(1), 194- 204.
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.06.013 URL |
[43] |
Yin, J., Tatone, D., & Csibra, G. (2020). Giving, but not taking, actions are spontaneously represented as social interactions: Evidence from modulation of lower alpha oscillations. Neuropsychologia, 139, 107363.
doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107363 URL |
[44] |
Yin, J., Xu, H. K., Duan, J. P., & Shen, M. W. (2018). Object- based attention on social units: Visual selection of hands performing a social interaction. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1040-1048.
doi: 10.1177/0956797617749636 URL |
[1] | 石如彬, 谢久书, 杨梦情, 王瑞明. 语言和情境对具体概念感知运动仿真的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(6): 583-594. |
[2] | 潘玥安, 姜云鹏, 郭茂杰, 吴瑕. 不确定性和预期有效性对运动方向感知决策的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(6): 595-603. |
[3] | 鹿子佳, 符颖, 张慢慢, 臧传丽, 白学军. 中文词类信息在副中央凹中的加工[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(5): 441-452. |
[4] | 周雨汐, 刘宇颢, 张清芳. 图词间隔时间影响口语词汇产生中语义效应的机制:图词干扰范式研究[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(5): 453-465. |
[5] | 李建花, 解佳佳, 庄锦英. 生理周期对情景记忆的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(5): 466-480. |
[6] | 张明, 王婷婷, 吴晓刚, 张月娥, 王爱君. 面孔表情和声音情绪信息整合对返回抑制的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(4): 331-342. |
[7] | 金花, 贾丽娜, 阴晓娟, 严世振, 魏士琳, 陈俊涛. 错误信息持续影响效应的神经基础[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(4): 343-354. |
[8] | 贾世伟, 齐丛丛, 陈乐乐, 任衍具. 工作记忆负荷对反馈加工过程的影响: 来自脑电研究的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(3): 248-258. |
[9] | 王哲, 陈亚春, 刘万鹏, 孙宇浩. 眼睛区域构型信息与特征信息的跨维共变增益效应及其加工特异性[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(3): 236-247. |
[10] | 周子暖, 陈颜璋, 傅世敏. 预期对注意的影响受制于被预期主体是目标还是分心物[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(3): 221-235. |
[11] | 罗文波, 齐正阳. 词汇具体性对情绪名词效价加工影响的ERP研究[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(2): 111-121. |
[12] | 李婉悦, 刘燊, 韩尚锋, 张林, 徐强. 特质焦虑在面部表情前注意加工阶段的影响:来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2022, 54(1): 1-11. |
[13] | 卢张龙 刘梦娜 刘玉洁 马盼盼 张瑞平. 内隐序列学习表征机制探究:眼动证据[J]. 心理学报, 0, (): 0-0. |
[14] | 柯晓晓, 齐惠紫, 梁家辉, 金欣园, 高婕, 张明霞, 汪亚珉. 中国人整体性思维特征的情境评估法及其应用[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(12): 1299-1309. |
[15] | 唐晓雨, 佟佳庚, 于宏, 王爱君. 内外源性空间注意对多感觉整合的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(11): 1173-1188. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||