多对象情境中一级视觉视角采择的自发性表现

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00421

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

本研究设计了3项实验探究多对象情境中一级视觉视角采择的自发性表现。实验1通过改编经典的任务范式, 验证了一级视觉视角采择的过程是可以自发产生的观点。实验2增加了一个虚拟对象, 结果发现存在多个对象的情况下, 尤其是对自我视角进行判断时, 虚拟对象所看到的客体数量一致性会产生群体视角作用, 影响任务绩效。实验3将虚拟对象看到的客体数量设定为不一致, 证明对象间视线的一致性也会吸引被试的注意, 在自我视角和他人视角条件下产生不同的影响作用。总之, 在多对象情境中, 无论该视角是否为目标视角, 人都会高度灵活、自发地对他人视角进行采择, 这一过程受到“本人−目标对象−无关对象”三者间关系的影响, 呈现出基于情境的特有表现。

关键词: 一级视觉视角采择, 自发性, 多对象, 自我中心干扰, 非自我中心干扰

Abstract:

The spontaneity of Level-1 visual perspective taking has been widely discussed in the field of visual perspective taking. Many studies have confirmed that Level-1 visual perspective taking is spontaneously activated, but this finding has mainly been observed in the context of a single avatar’s presence. Scenarios involving two or more avatars have received scant attention. Specifically, no suitable experimental paradigm has been developed for situations with multiple avatars in this domain. Therefore, the paradigm adapted from those employed by Samson et al. (2010) and Mattan et al. (2015) was used in this study. The stimuli of virtual scenes were modeled by 3D Max, and the experimental procedures were programmed by E-Prime, recording the accuracy rate and reaction time. In contrast to previous studies, this paper explores whether and how the multiple avatars affect the process of Level-1 visual perspective taking, and clarifies the influencing factors by varying the conditions.

This study comprises three experiments. In Experiment 1, the paradigm adapted from the classic “dot-perspective task” was employed to investigate whether participants would spontaneously compute another perspective in the presence of a single avatar (target avatar). In Experiment 2, an additional avatar (irrelevant avatar) is introduced to explore how the consistency in the number of dots seen by the avatars would affect the perspective-taking process. Subsequently, Experiment 3 excluded the influence of the consistency in the number of dots seen by the avatars and investigated whether consistency in the line of sight would impact the presence of multiple avatars.

Based on the results from these three experiments, the conclusions drawn are as follows:

(1) The adapted paradigm proved to be feasible, successfully replicating the results of previous studies: which indicated that Level-1 visual perspective taking was spontaneously activated in the presence of a single avatar. The perspectives of the self and the avatar mutually interfered with each other. For self-perspective judging trials, the avatar’s perspective was spontaneously activated, leading to altercentric intrusion, and conversely, egocentric intrusion could occur.

(2) In the presence of multiple avatars, the Level-1 visual perspective-taking process remained spontaneous. Furthermore, the consistency in the number of objects seen by avatars resulted in a group-perspective effect, especially during self-perspective judgments. When the number of objects seen by the participant and the target avatar was consistent, the group perspective had a positive impact on the judgment. Conversely, if there was an inconsistency, it would impede the judgment process.

(3) When the number of objects seen by avatars was set to be inconsistent, the consistency of the line of sight could still capture the participants’ attention to both avatars. This situation leads to interference from the perspective of the irrelevant avatar, further influencing the spontaneity of Level-1 visual perspective taking, whether it was judged from the perspective of the self or the avatar.

In summary, perspective computation occurs effortlessly, flexibly, and spontaneously in scenarios involving multiple avatars, whether considering the perspective of a target or irrelevant avatar. The outcomes of perspective taking can either enhance or impede the performance in dot-perspective tasks, depending on the relationship among the “self, target avatar, and irrelevant avatar”, while exhibiting distinctive performance traits based on the specific situation.

Key words: visual perspective taking, spontaneity, multiple avatars, egocentric intrusion, altercentric intrusion

中图分类号:

B842

豆艳, 李晶. (2024). 多对象情境中一级视觉视角采择的自发性表现. 心理学报, 56(4), 421-434.

DOU Yan, LI Jing. (2024). The spontaneity of Level-1 visual perspective taking: Under the condition of multiple avatars. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(4), 421-434.

图/表 12

参考文献 39

[1]	Apperly, I. A. (2010). Mindreaders: The cognitive basis of "theory of mind". Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203833926
[2]	Apperly, I. A., & Butterfill, S. A. (2009). Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review, 116(4), 953-970. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016923 doi: 10.1037/a0016923 URL pmid: 19839692
[3]	Apperly, I. A., & Robinson, E. J. (2003). When can children handle referential opacity? Evidence for systematic variation in 5- and 6-year-old children’s reasoning about beliefs and belief reports. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85(4), 297-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-0965(03)00099-7 URL pmid: 12906844
[4]	Baker, L. J., Levin, D. T., & Saylor, M. M. (2016). The extent of default visual perspective taking in complex layouts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(4), 508-516. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000164 doi: 10.1037/xhp0000164 URL pmid: 26551519
[5]	Capozzi, F., Cavallo, A., Furlanetto, T., & Becchio, C. (2014). Altercentric intrusions from multiple perspectives: Beyond dyads. Plos One, 9(12), e114210. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114210 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114210 URL
[6]	Capozzi, F., & Ristic, J. (2020). Attention AND mentalizing? Reframing a debate on social orienting of attention. Visual Cognition, 28(2), 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2020.1725206 doi: 10.1080/13506285.2020.1725206 URL
[7]	Cole, G. G., Atkinson, M. A., D’Souza, A. D. C., & Smith, D. T. (2017). Spontaneous Perspective Taking in Humans? Vision, 1(2), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision1020017 doi: 10.3390/vision1020017 URL
[8]	Cole, G. G., Atkinson, M., Le, A. T., & Smith, D. T. (2016). Do humans spontaneously take the perspective of others? Acta Psychologica, 164,165-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.01.007 doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.01.007 URL pmid: 26826864
[9]	Conway, J. R., Lee, D., Ojaghi, M., Catmur, C., & Bird, G. (2017). Submentalizing or mentalizing in a Level 1 perspective-taking task: A cloak and goggles test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(3), 454-465. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000319 doi: 10.1037/xhp0000319 URL pmid: 27893269
[10]	Fan, Y., Xiao, C. L., & Zhou, R. L. (2021). Regulating role of attention in spontaneous visual perspective-taking. Space Medicine & Medical Engineering, 34(1), 31-38.
	[范丫, 肖承丽, 周仁来. (2021). 注意对视觉视角采择自发产生的调节作用. 航天医学与医学工程, 34(1), 31-38.]
[11]	Flavell, J. H., Everett, B. A., Croft, K., & Flavell, E. R. (1981). Young children's knowledge about visual perception: Further evidence for the Level 1-Level 2 distinction. Developmental Psychology, 17(1), 99-103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.17.1.99 doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.17.1.99 URL
[12]	Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1998). Words, Thoughts, and Theories. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7289.001.0001
[13]	He, X. Y., Yang, Y. Q., Wang, L., & Yin, J. (2021). Tracking multiple perspectives: Spontaneous computation of what individuals in high entitative groups see. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28,879-887. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01857-x doi: 10.3758/s13423-020-01857-x URL
[14]	Heyes, C. (2014). Submentalizing: I am not really reading your mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(2), 131-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613518076 doi: 10.1177/1745691613518076 URL pmid: 26173251
[15]	Kessler, K., & Rutherford, H. (2010). The two forms of visuo-spatial perspective taking are differently embodied and subserve different spatial prepositions. Frontiers in Psychology, 1,213. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00213 doi: 10.3389/fphys.2010.00213 URL pmid: 21833268
[16]	Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253-270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253 doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.97.2.253 URL pmid: 2186425
[17]	Kornblum, S., & Lee, J. W. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21(4), 855-875. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.21.4.855
[18]	Li, J., Su, X. Y., Wang, Y., Liu, C., & Chen, Q. R. (2017). The effect of different object orientation conditions on the construction of intrinsic frame of reference system in Virtual Scene. Journal of Psychological Science, 40(6), 1322-1327.
	[李晶, 苏晓雨, 王垚, 刘昌, 陈庆荣. (2017). 虚拟场景中不同客体朝向条件对内在参照系建立的影响. 心理科学, 40(6), 1322-1327.]
[19]	Linders, G. M., & Louwerse, M. M. (2023). Zipf's law revisited: Spoken dialog, linguistic units, parameters, and the principle of least effort. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 30(1), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02142-9 doi: 10.3758/s13423-022-02142-9 URL
[20]	Mattan, B., Quinn, K. A., Apperly, I. A., Sui, J., & Rotshtein, P. (2015). Is it always me first? Effects of self-tagging on third-person perspective-taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(4), 1100-1117. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000078 doi: 10.1037/xlm0000078 URL
[21]	O’Grady, C., Scott-Phillips, T., Lavelle, S., & Smith, K. (2020). Perspective-taking is spontaneous but not automatic. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(10), 1605-1628. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820942479 doi: 10.1177/1747021820942479 URL
[22]	Pan, W., Wang, Y., & Chen, W. (2017). Research on evolvement and development trend of mentalizing accounts of social cognition——Reflections on submentalizing. Journal of Psychological Science, 40(5), 1274-1279.
	[潘威, 汪寅, 陈巍. (2017). 心智化社会认知观的演变及发展——来自潜心智化的思考. 心理科学, 40(5), 1274-1279.]
[23]	Pesimena, G., & Soranzo, A. (2023). Both the domain-general and the mentalising processes affect visual perspective taking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(3), 469-484. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218221094310 doi: 10.1177/17470218221094310 URL
[24]	Qureshi, A. W., Apperly, I. A., & Samson, D. (2010). Executive function is necessary for perspective selection, not Level-1 visual perspective calculation: Evidence from a dual-task study of adults. Cognition, 117(2), 230-236. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.003 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.08.003 pmid: 20817158
[25]	Samson, D., Apperly, I. A., Braithwaite, J. J., Andrews, B. J., & Bodley Scott, S. E. (2010). Seeing it their way: Evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1255-1266. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0018729 doi: 10.1037/a0018729 URL pmid: 20731512
[26]	Samuel, S., Roehr-Brackin, K., Jelbert, S., & Clayton, N. S. (2019). Flexible egocentricity: Asymmetric switch costs on a perspective-taking task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 45(2), 213-218. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000582 doi: 10.1037/xlm0000582 URL
[27]	Santiesteban, I., Catmur, C., Hopkins, S. C., Bird, G., & Heyes, C. (2014). Avatars and arrows: Implicit mentalizing or domain-general processing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(3), 929-937. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035175 doi: 10.1037/a0035175 URL pmid: 24377486
[28]	Schurz, M., Kronbichler, M., Weissengruber, S., Surtees, A., Samson, D., & Perner, J. (2015). Clarifying the role of theory of mind areas during visual perspective taking: Issues of spontaneity and domain-specificity. NeuroImage, 117,386-396. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.031 doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.04.031 URL pmid: 25907759
[29]	Shao, Y. T., Li, W. J., Sun, B. H., & Zhang, W. H. (2020). The effect of visuospatial perspective-taking on teacher empathy: Different functions of two components. Journal of Psychological Science, 43(4), 871-878.
	[邵雨婷, 李伟健, 孙炳海, 张文海. (2020). 视觉空间观点采择对教师共情的影响: 自我表征抑制和自我视空转换的不同作用. 心理科学, 43(4), 871-878.]
[30]	Surtees, A. D. R., & Apperly, I. A. (2012). Egocentrism and automatic perspective taking in children and adults. Child development, 83(2), 452-460. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01730.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01730.x URL pmid: 22335247
[31]	Surtees, A., Apperly, I., & Samson, D. (2013a). Similarities and differences in visual and spatial perspective-taking processes. Cognition, 129(2), 426-438. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.06.008 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.06.008 URL
[32]	Surtees, A., Apperly, I., & Samson, D. (2013b). The use of embodied self-rotation for visual and spatial perspective- taking. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7,698. http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00698
[33]	Trick, L. M., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1994). Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision. Psychological Review, 101(1), 80-102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.80 URL pmid: 8121961
[34]	Westra, E. (2017). Spontaneous mindreading: A problem for the two-systems account. Synthese, 194(11), 4559-4581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1159-0 doi: 10.1007/s11229-016-1159-0 URL
[35]	Wu, M. H., Xie, J. S., & Deng, Z. (2022). The debate between inhibition and attribution of egocentric bias in visual perspective taking. Advances in Psychological Science, 30(1), 179-187. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00179
	[吴梦慧, 谢久书, 邓铸. (2022). 视觉观点采择中自我中心性偏差的抑制和归因之争. 心理科学进展, 30(1), 179-187.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2022.00179
[36]	Xiao, C. L., Sui, Y. Q., Xiao, S. H., & Zhou, R. L. (2021). A new perspective on spatial interaction research: The effects of multiple social factors. Advances in Psychological Science, 29(5), 796-805. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.00796
	[肖承丽, 隋雨檠, 肖苏衡, 周仁来. (2021). 空间交互研究新视角:多重社会因素的影响. 心理科学进展, 29(5), 796-805.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2021.00796
[37]	Zhang, W. X. (1998). The perspective taking and the issues existing in these studies (In Chinese). Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 4(7), 58-63.
	[张文新. (1998). 论观点采择及其研究中存在的若干问题. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 4(7), 58-63.]
[38]	Zhang, Z. J., Zhao, Y. J., & Zhan, Q. T. (2011). Effects of gaze direction perception on gaze following behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43(7), 726-738.
	[张智君, 赵亚军, 占琪涛. (2011). 注视方向的知觉对注视追随行为的影响. 心理学报, 43(7), 726-738.]
[39]	Zuo, T. T., & Hu, Q. F. (2019). The Automaticity of Perspective-taking. Psychological Development and Education, 35(2), 236-245.
	[左婷婷, 胡清芬. (2019). 视角采择的自动性. 心理发展与教育, 35(2), 236-245.]

判断视角	自我−他人客体一致性	正确率	正确反应时(ms)
自我	一致	0.97 ± 0.03	715.49 ± 157.63
自我	不一致	0.91 ± 0.08	749.94 ± 173.77
他人	一致	0.96 ± 0.03	754.62 ± 156.83
他人	不一致	0.92 ± 0.07	853.92 ± 176.71

判断视角	自我−他人客体一致性	正确率	正确反应时(ms)
自我	一致	0.97 ± 0.03	715.49 ± 157.63
自我	不一致	0.91 ± 0.08	749.94 ± 173.77
他人	一致	0.96 ± 0.03	754.62 ± 156.83
他人	不一致	0.92 ± 0.07	853.92 ± 176.71

判断视角	自我−他人客体一致性	他人−他人客体一致性	正确率	正确反应时(ms)
自我	一致	一致	0.97 ± 0.01	765.34 ± 35.69
	一致	不一致	0.96 ± 0.01	825.44 ± 39.40
	不一致	一致	0.96 ± 0.01	808.80 ± 39.14
	不一致	不一致	0.93 ± 0.01	787.28 ± 36.40
他人	一致	一致	0.97 ± 0.01	885.56 ± 41.63
	一致	不一致	0.95 ± 0.01	890.75 ± 36.74
	不一致	一致	0.86 ± 0.02	1038.37 ± 46.28
	不一致	不一致	0.88 ± 0.02	1000.97 ± 39.61

判断视角	自我−他人客体一致性	他人−他人客体一致性	正确率	正确反应时(ms)
自我	一致	一致	0.97 ± 0.01	765.34 ± 35.69
	一致	不一致	0.96 ± 0.01	825.44 ± 39.40
	不一致	一致	0.96 ± 0.01	808.80 ± 39.14
	不一致	不一致	0.93 ± 0.01	787.28 ± 36.40
他人	一致	一致	0.97 ± 0.01	885.56 ± 41.63
	一致	不一致	0.95 ± 0.01	890.75 ± 36.74
	不一致	一致	0.86 ± 0.02	1038.37 ± 46.28
	不一致	不一致	0.88 ± 0.02	1000.97 ± 39.61

判断视角	自我−他人客体一致性	他人−他人视线一致性	正确率	正确反应时(ms)
自我	一致	一致	0.97 ± 0.01	764.81 ± 27.71
	一致	不一致	0.94 ± 0.01	783.73 ± 29.37
	不一致	一致	0.96 ± 0.01	806.46 ± 29.61
	不一致	不一致	0.95 ± 0.01	791.84 ± 29.59
他人	一致	一致	0.96 ± 0.01	889.84 ± 28.60
	一致	不一致	0.96 ± 0.01	858.91 ± 27.97
	不一致	一致	0.88 ± 0.02	976.62 ± 29.65
	不一致	不一致	0.84 ± 0.02	934.18 ± 27.85