바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.32 No.1

Citation Share

The Effect of Confronted Animals in Size Comparison Task

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2020, v.32 no.1, pp.101-110
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.1.007


& (2020). The Effect of Confronted Animals in Size Comparison Task. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 32(1), 101-110, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.1.007

Abstract

The facilitative effect of stimuli arrangement was reported when two objects were arranged to make interact functionally (Green & Hummel, 2006; Papeo, Stein, & Soto-Faraco, 2017). It was investigated whether a similar effect could be observed when an implied circumstantial relationship was made by manipulating the facing direction of animals. We modified the size comparison task which was used to judge the semantic size of animal by Moyer (1973) and Paivio (1975). Specifically, four types of confrontation were applied to presenting two images: (1) facing left, (2) facing right, (3) face-to-face, or (4) back-to-back. In results, an inhibitory effect of face-to-face arrangement was observed. The reaction time performances were ordered by the confrontation types, face-to-face, back-to-back, and facing left or right, from the slowest to the fastest. It was conjectured that different circumstantial relationship provoked by the confrontation types of stimuli could put an extra load on cognitive processing, which could interfere the main cognitive judgments.

keywords
마주봄 방향 효과, 크기 판단 과제, 상호작용 관계성, 심상, confronted animals, size comparison, interaction relationship, cognitive judgement, imagery

Reference

1.

Banks, W. P., & Flora, J. (1977). Semantic and perceptual processes in symbolic comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3, 278-290.

2.

Green, C., & Hummel, J. E. (2006). Familiar interacting object pairs are perceptually grouped. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 1107.

3.

Johnson, D. M. (1939). Confidence and speed in the two-category judgement. Archives of Psychology, 241, 1-52.

4.

Jung, H-S., Lee, S-B., & Jung, W-H. (2008). The effect of orientation on recognizing object representation. Korean Journal of the Science of Emotion and Sensibility, 11, 501-510.

5.

Kaiser, D., Stein, T., & Peelen, M. V. (2014). Object grouping based on real-world regularities facilitates perception by reducing competitive interactions in visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 11217-11222.

6.

Kebbe, H., & Vinter, A. (2013). How culture, age, and manual dominance affect directionality in drawing side view objects. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44, 160-172.

7.

Kim, J. G., & Biederman, I. (2010). Where do objects become scenes?. Cerebral Cortex, 21, 1738-1746.

8.

Konkle, T., & Oliva, A. (2012). A familiar-size Stroop effect:Real-world size is an automatic property of object representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 561-569.

9.

Lloyd-Jones, T. J., Gehrke, J., & Lauder, J. (2009). Animal recognition and eye movements. Experimental Psychology, 57, 117-125.

10.

Maass, A., & Russo, A. (2003). Directional bias in the mental representation of spatial events: Nature or culture?. Psychological Science, 14, 296-301.

11.

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.

12.

Moyer, R. S. (1973). Comparing objects in memory: Evidence suggesting an internal psychophysics. Perception &Psychophysics, 13, 180-184.

13.

Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519-1520.

14.

Nachshon, I., Shefler, G. E., & Samocha, D. (1977). Directional scanning as a function of stimulus characteristics, reading habits, and directional set. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 8, 83-99.

15.

Osaka, N. (1976). Reaction time as a function of peripheral retinal locus around fovea: Effect of stimulus size. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 603-606.

16.

Paivio, A. (1975). Perceptual comparisons through the mind’s eye. Memory & Cognition, 3, 635-647.

17.

Papeo, L., Stein, T., & Soto-Faraco, S. (2017). The two-body inversion effect. Psychological Science, 28, 369-379.

18.

Payne, W. H. (1967). Visual reaction times on a circle about the fovea. Science, 155, 481-482.

19.

Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy - Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162, 8-13.

20.

Roberts, K. L., & Humphreys, G. W. (2010). Action relationships concatenate representations of separate objects in the ventral visual system. Neuroimage, 52, 1541-1548.

21.

Rubinsten, O., & Henik, A. (2002). Is an ant larger than a lion?. Acta Psychologica, 111, 141-154.

22.

Spalek, T. M., & Hammad, S. (2005). The left-to-right bias in inhibition of return is due to the direction of reading. Psychological Science, 16, 15-18.

23.

Sperandio, I., Savazzi, S., Gregory, R. L., & Marzi, C. A. (2009). Visual reaction time and size constancy. Perception, 38(11), 1601-1609.

24.

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.

25.

Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2003). Spatial iconicity affects semantic relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin &Review, 10, 954-958.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy