The Effect of Confronted Animals in Size Comparison Task

Green과 Hummel(2006)은 기능적으로 상호작용하도록 사물의 방향을 적절하게 제시할 때, 그리고 Papeo와 Stein, Soto- Faraco(2017)는 두 자극을 마주보도록 배치할 때 인지적 과제 수행이 향상되는 것을 보고하였다. 본 연구는 자극이 향하는 방향을 완전하게 조합하여, 두 동물 자극이 보는 방향에 따라 인지 과제 수행이 달라지는지를 알아보았다. 인지적 과제로는 Moyer(1973)와 Paivio(1975)의 연구에서 사용된 동물의 실제 크기인 의미적 크기를 판단하는 과제를 사용하였다. 실험결과 두 동물이 바라보는 방향의 조합에 따라 과제 수행의 차이가 관찰되었다. 같은 쪽을 보는 두 조건(두 동물이 모두 왼쪽을 보는 조건, 모두 오른쪽을 보는 조건)과 비교하여 두 동물이 마주볼 때 반응시간이 유의하게 느렸다. 이러한 결과는 마주보는 두 자극에서 과제 수행의 향상을 보고한 이전의 연구결과들과는 상반되는 것이다. 두 동물이 마주봄으로써 자극 간 상호작용 관계가 크기 판단 과제의 수행을 방해할 가능성을 제기하고, 후속 연구의 방향에 대해 논의하였다.

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

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

참고문헌

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

바로가기메뉴

논문 상세

Vol.32 No.1

동물 크기 비교에서 관찰된 마주봄 방향 효과

The Effect of Confronted Animals in Size Comparison Task

초록

Abstract

참고문헌

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물