情绪效价可预测性对时间捆绑效应的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.00036

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

时间捆绑效应指的是主观上主动动作和动作结果的时间点相互靠近的现象。其中, 时间捆绑效应可分为动作捆绑和结果捆绑, 分别对应主动动作和动作结果的时间点变化。本研究通过一个混合设计实验考察了情绪效价可预测性对时间捆绑效应的影响。情绪效价可预测性(可预测、不可预测)为被试内因素, 刺激模态(听觉刺激、视觉刺激)为被试间因素。结果发现, 情绪效价为可预测时, 结果捆绑在主动按键后产生听觉刺激或视觉刺激都出现了增强, 而动作捆绑仅在产生视觉刺激时才出现增强。结果表明, 情绪效价为可预测时会增强时间捆绑效应, 但该作用在动作捆绑和结果捆绑中存在差异。由于时间捆绑效应是反映主动控制感的主要指标, 本研究结果对先进驾驶辅助系统的交互设计具有一定的参考意义。

关键词: 情绪效价可预测性, 时间捆绑效应, 刺激模态, 主动控制感, 人机交互, 先进驾驶辅助系统

Abstract:

The sense of agency refers to the experience of "I am the initiator of actions, controlling the external world". Temporal binding, which is related to the sense of agency, refers to the subjective compression of the perceived time interval between voluntary action and its action outcome. Previous studies have explored the effect of emotional valence on temporal binding by setting the predictability of emotional valence as the control variable. However, the effect of the predictability of emotional valence on temporal binding remains unknown. This study explored the effect of the predictability of emotional valence of action outcomes on temporal binding, based on the hypothesis that temporal binding is stronger when emotional valence is more predictable.

This study used Libet’s clock paradigm to investigate the effect of the predictability of emotional valence of action outcomes on temporal binding. A 2 (predictability of emotional valence, within: predictable vs. unpredictable) × 2 (stimulus modality, between: auditory vs. visual) mixed design was employed. A total of 60 participants were randomly assigned to one of two between-subject conditions, resulting in 30 in the auditory group and 30 in the visual group. There were two main phases of the study. During the baseline phase, the participants in the two groups were asked to either press the key at a freely chosen point from 2, 560ms to 5, 120ms or perceive the auditory/visual stimulus randomly from 2, 560ms to 5, 120ms after the trial start. Next, they were asked to estimate the position of the clock hand at the onset of either the key-press or the stimulus. During the operant phase, participants were also asked to press the key at a freely chosen point from 2, 560ms to 5, 120ms. The key-press would cause the auditory/visual emotional outcome (negative, neutral or positive) following a delay duration of 250ms. Next, they were asked to estimate the position of the clock hand at the onset of either the key-press or the emotional outcome. When the emotional valence was predictable, there would be a fixed emotional outcome to the key-press (negative, neutral or positive) in 80% of trials and the other remaining emotional outcome in 20% of trials. When the emotional valence was unpredictable, the key-press would result in one of the three emotional outcomes.

The results showed that temporal binding was enhanced when the emotional valence was predictable. Furthermore, when emotional valence was predictable, the outcome binding was stronger in both the auditory and visual groups, whereas the action binding was stronger only in the visual group.

In conclusion, the predictability of emotional valence is an important factor affecting temporal binding. The predictability of emotional valence can enhance outcome binding in both auditory and visual modalities, but can only enhance action binding in the visual modality. This may be due to the difference between action and outcome binding mechanisms or between the timing systems of auditory and visual stimuli. These results have an important implication for the interactive design of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) since temporal binding is the main index of the sense of agency.

Key words: predictability of emotional valence, temporal binding, stimulus modality, sense of agency, human- computer interaction, advanced driver assistance systems

中图分类号:

B842

黄昕杰, 张弛, 万华根, 张灵聪. (2023). 情绪效价可预测性对时间捆绑效应的影响. 心理学报, 55(1), 36-44.

HUANG Xinjie, ZHANG Chi, WAN Huagen, ZHANG Lingcong. (2023). Effect of predictability of emotional valence on temporal binding. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 55(1), 36-44.

图/表 5

参考文献 42

[1]	Aarts H., Bijleveld E., Custers R., Dogge M., Deelder M., Schutter D., & van Haren N. E. (2012). Positive priming and intentional binding: Eye-blink rate predicts reward information effects on the sense of agency. Social Neuroscience, 7(1), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2011.590602 doi: 10.1080/17470919.2011.590602 URL pmid: 21936738
[2]	An C. L., Li L. H., Tian H. Y., Li F., Jin D., Bu Y. B., & Cao L. S. (2021). The development of the two-step account of sense of agency. Journal of Psychological Science, 44(5), 1273-1279. https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20210533
	[安灿翎, 李力红, 田昊月, 李飞, 金丹, 布宇博, 曹玲珊. (2021). 施动感双层结构的发展. 心理科学, 44(5), 1273-1279 ]
[3]	Antusch S., Aarts H., & Custers R. (2019). The role of intentional strength in shaping the sense of agency. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1124. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01124 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01124 URL pmid: 31231265
[4]	Barlas Z., Hockley W. E., & Obhi S. S. (2018). Effects of free choice and outcome valence on the sense of agency: Evidence from measures of intentional binding and feelings of control. Experimental Brain Research, 236(1), 129-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-017-5112-3 doi: 10.1007/s00221-017-5112-3 URL pmid: 29080100
[5]	Berberian B. (2019). Man-machine teaming: A problem of agency. IFAC-Papers OnLine, 51(34), 118-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.01.049
[6]	Christensen J. F., Yoshie M., Di Costa S., & Haggard P. (2016). Emotional valence, sense of agency and responsibility: A study using intentional binding. Consciousness and Cognition, 43, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.02.016 doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2016.02.016 URL pmid: 27174794
[7]	Desantis A., Hughes G., & Waszak F. (2012). Intentional binding is driven by the mere presence of an action and not by motor prediction. PLoS One, 7(1), e29557. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029557 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029557 URL
[8]	Dittrich M., & Mathew N. (2021). Emotional feedback to mitigate aggressive driving:A real-world driving study. In R. Ali., B. Lugrin., & F. Charles. (Eds.), International conference on persuasive technology (pp. 88-101). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79460-6_8
[9]	Gallagher S. (2000). Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 14-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1364-6613(99)01417-5 URL pmid: 10637618
[10]	Gentsch A., & Synofzik M. (2014). Affective coding: The emotional dimension of agency. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 608. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00608 doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00608 URL pmid: 25161616
[11]	Haering C., & Kiesel A. (2014). Intentional binding is independent of the validity of the action effect's identity. Acta Psychologica, 152, 109-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.07.015 doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.07.015 URL pmid: 25208843
[12]	Haggard P. (2017). Sense of agency in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 18(4), 196-207. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2017.14 doi: 10.1038/nrn.2017.14 URL pmid: 28251993
[13]	Haggard P., Clark S., & Kalogeras J. (2002). Voluntary action and conscious awareness. Nature Neuroscience, 5(4), 382-385. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn827 URL pmid: 11896397
[14]	Hughes G., Desantis A., & Waszak F. (2013). Mechanisms of intentional binding and sensory attenuation: The role of temporal prediction, temporal control, identity prediction, and motor prediction. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028566 doi: 10.1037/a0028566 URL pmid: 22612280
[15]	Humphreys G. R., & Buehner M. J. (2009). Magnitude estimation reveals temporal binding at super-second intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(5), 1542-1549. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014492 doi: 10.1037/a0014492 URL
[16]	Kaiser J., Buciuman M., Gigl S., Gentsch A., & Schütz-Bosbach S. (2021). The interplay between affective processing and sense of agency during action regulation: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 716220. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.716220 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.716220 URL
[17]	Limerick H., Coyle D., & Moore J. W. (2014). The experience of agency in human-computer interactions: A review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 643. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00643 doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00643 URL pmid: 25191256
[18]	Madary M. (2022). The illusion of agency in human-computer interaction. Neuroethics, 15(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09491-1 doi: 10.1007/s12152-022-09488-w URL
[19]	Moore J., & Haggard P. (2008). Awareness of action: Inference and prediction. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 136-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2006.12.004 URL pmid: 17306565
[20]	Moore J. W. (2016). What is the sense of agency and why does it matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1272. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01272 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01272 URL pmid: 27621713
[21]	Moore J. W., Lagnado D., Deal D. C., & Haggard P. (2009). Feelings of control: Contingency determines experience of action. Cognition, 110(2), 279-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.006 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.006 URL pmid: 19110240
[22]	Moore J. W., & Obhi S. S. (2012). Intentional binding and the sense of agency: A review. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 546-561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.12.002 doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2011.12.002 URL pmid: 22240158
[23]	Moreton J., Callan M. J., & Hughes G. (2017). How much does emotional valence of action outcomes affect temporal binding? Consciousness and Cognition, 49, 25-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.12.008 doi: S1053-8100(16)30356-7 URL pmid: 28107726
[24]	Ruess M., Thomaschke R., & Kiesel A. (2017). The time course of intentional binding. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(4), 1123-1131. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1292-y doi: 10.3758/s13414-017-1292-y URL
[25]	Ruess M., Thomaschke R., & Kiesel A. (2018). Intentional binding of visual effects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80(3), 713-722. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1479-2 doi: 10.3758/s13414-017-1479-2 URL
[26]	Sarma D., & Srinivasan N. (2021). Intended emotions influence intentional binding with emotional faces: Larger binding for intended negative emotions. Consciousness and Cognition, 92, 103136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2021.103136 doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2021.103136 URL
[27]	Sauter D. A., Eisner F., Calder A. J., & Scott S. K. (2010). Perceptual cues in nonverbal vocal expressions of emotion. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(11), 2251-2272. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470211003721642 doi: 10.1080/17470211003721642 URL
[28]	Seinfeld S., Feuchtner T., Maselli A., & Müller J. (2021). User representations in human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 36(5-6), 400-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2020.1724790 doi: 10.1080/07370024.2020.1724790 URL
[29]	Tanaka T., & Kawabata H. (2021). Sense of agency is modulated by interactions between action choice, outcome valence, and predictability. Current Psychology, 40(4), 1795-1806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0121-3 doi: 10.1007/s12144-018-0121-3 URL
[30]	Tanaka T., Matsumoto T., Hayashi S., Takagi S., & Kawabata H. (2019). What makes action and outcome temporally close to each other: A systematic review and meta-analysis of temporal binding. Timing & Time Perception, 7(3), 189-218. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134468-20191150
[31]	Tian H. Y., Li L. H., Xu Z., Li F., Jin D., & An C. L. (2018). Sense of agency in the minimal self. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(5), 872-885. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00872 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00872 URL
	[田昊月, 李力红, 徐喆, 李飞, 金丹, 安灿翎. (2018). 最小自我中的施动感. 心理科学进展, 26(5), 872-885 ]
[32]	Tonn S., Pfister R., Klaffehn A. L., Weller L., & Schwarz K. A. (2021). Two faces of temporal binding: Action- and effect-binding are not correlated. Consciousness and Cognition, 96, 103219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2021.103219 doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2021.103219 URL
[33]	Waszak F., Cardoso-Leite P., & Hughes G. (2012). Action effect anticipation: Neurophysiological basis and functional consequences. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(2), 943-959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.11.004 doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.11.004 URL pmid: 22108008
[34]	Wen W. (2019). Does delay in feedback diminish sense of agency? A review. Consciousness and Cognition, 73, 102759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2019.05.007 doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2019.05.007 URL
[35]	Wen W., & Imamizu H. (2022). The sense of agency in perception, behaviour and human-machine interactions. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1, 211-222. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00030-6 doi: 10.1038/s44159-022-00030-6 URL
[36]	Wen W., Kuroki Y., & Asama H. (2019). The sense of agency in driving automation. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2691. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02691 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02691 URL pmid: 31849787
[37]	Wen W., Yamashita A., & Asama H. (2017). The influence of performance on action-effect integration in sense of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 53, 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.06.008 doi: S1053-8100(16)30071-X URL pmid: 28651095
[38]	Wolpe N., Haggard P., Siebner H. R., & Rowe J. B. (2013). Cue integration and the perception of action in intentional binding. Experimental Brain Research, 229(3), 467-474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3419-2 doi: 10.1007/s00221-013-3419-2 URL pmid: 23371752
[39]	Wu D., Gu J. J., Li M., Zhang M., Zhang M., Zhao K., & Fu X. L. (2019). Sense of agency based on action and causation: The mechanism of intentional binding effect for voluntary action. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(5), 804-810. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.J.1042.2019.00804 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00804 URL
	[吴迪, 顾晶金, 李明, 张淼, 张明, 赵科, 傅小兰. (2019). 动作的主动控制感与因果关系的主动控制感: 主动动作时间压缩效应的产生机制. 心理科学进展, 27(5), 804-810 ]
[40]	Yoshie M., & Haggard P. (2013). Negative emotional outcomes attenuate sense of agency over voluntary actions. Current Biology, 23(20), 2028-2032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.034 doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.08.034 URL pmid: 24094850
[41]	Yoshie M., & Haggard P. (2017). Effects of emotional valence on sense of agency require a predictive model. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 8733. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-08803-3 doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08803-3 URL pmid: 28821755
[42]	Zhang M., Wu D., Li M., Ling Y. B., Zhang M., & Zhao K. (2018). The measurement and neural mechanism of sense of agency. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(10), 1787-1793. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.J.1042.2018.01787 doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01787 URL
	[张淼, 吴迪, 李明, 凌懿白, 张明, 赵科. (2018). 主动控制感的测量及认知神经机制. 心理科学进展, 26(10), 1787-1793 ]

实验材料	情绪效价评分(M ± SD)			F检验显著性	事后比较
实验材料	消极	中性	积极	F检验显著性	事后比较
听觉刺激	2.00 ± 1.20	3.49 ± 1.07	5.37 ± 2.17	p < 0.001	消极<中性^**
					消极<积极^***
					中性<积极^***
视觉刺激	1.39 ± 0.42	4.86 ± 0.93	6.73 ± 0.95	p < 0.001	消极<中性^***
					消极<积极^***
					中性<积极^***

实验材料	情绪效价评分(M ± SD)			F检验显著性	事后比较
实验材料	消极	中性	积极	F检验显著性	事后比较
听觉刺激	2.00 ± 1.20	3.49 ± 1.07	5.37 ± 2.17	p < 0.001	消极<中性^**
					消极<积极^***
					中性<积极^***
视觉刺激	1.39 ± 0.42	4.86 ± 0.93	6.73 ± 0.95	p < 0.001	消极<中性^***
					消极<积极^***
					中性<积极^***

刺激呈现时长	样本量	时间判断误差(ms)
刺激呈现时长	样本量	M	SD
听觉刺激
100 ms, Haggard等人(2002)	9	15	72
100 ms, Antusch等人(2019)	36	19.46	58.37
840 ms, 本研究	30	40.53	99.05
视觉刺激
150 ms, Ruess等人(2018)	48	21	65.47
300 ms, 本研究	30	36.01	98.81

刺激呈现时长	样本量	时间判断误差(ms)
刺激呈现时长	样本量	M	SD
听觉刺激
100 ms, Haggard等人(2002)	9	15	72
100 ms, Antusch等人(2019)	36	19.46	58.37
840 ms, 本研究	30	40.53	99.05
视觉刺激
150 ms, Ruess等人(2018)	48	21	65.47
300 ms, 本研究	30	36.01	98.81