Is separation represented in terms of position?

IF 2.1 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Stephen Dopkins
{"title":"Is separation represented in terms of position?","authors":"Stephen Dopkins","doi":"10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How do humans make judgments of separation (distance in a frontal plane)? According to the additive account of separation assessment, the separation between two points is inferred from the number of instances of a unit distance lying between the points. According to the subtractive account, the separation between two points is inferred from the difference between their positions in a localization system. In response to recent findings that are consistent with the additive account and inconsistent with the subtractive account, the present study explicitly tested the subtractive account. The study tested whether separations are represented in memory in terms of positions, as would be expected under the subtractive account. In two experiments the study found no support for this possibility. Although participants showed a bias to mis-recall the members of a set of separations in the direction of the average separation in the set, participants did not show a parallel bias in recalling the positions that defined the separations. Although participants were influenced in recalling the members of a set of separations by the range of the scale that was used to specify the separations, participants were not similarly influenced in recalling the positions that defined the separations.</p>","PeriodicalId":7141,"journal":{"name":"Acta Psychologica","volume":"253 ","pages":"104725"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Psychologica","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104725","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

How do humans make judgments of separation (distance in a frontal plane)? According to the additive account of separation assessment, the separation between two points is inferred from the number of instances of a unit distance lying between the points. According to the subtractive account, the separation between two points is inferred from the difference between their positions in a localization system. In response to recent findings that are consistent with the additive account and inconsistent with the subtractive account, the present study explicitly tested the subtractive account. The study tested whether separations are represented in memory in terms of positions, as would be expected under the subtractive account. In two experiments the study found no support for this possibility. Although participants showed a bias to mis-recall the members of a set of separations in the direction of the average separation in the set, participants did not show a parallel bias in recalling the positions that defined the separations. Although participants were influenced in recalling the members of a set of separations by the range of the scale that was used to specify the separations, participants were not similarly influenced in recalling the positions that defined the separations.

是否用位置来表示分离?
人类如何判断分离(额平面上的距离)?根据距离评价的加性解释,两点之间的距离是由两点之间单位距离的实例数来推断的。根据减法说,两点之间的分离是从它们在定位系统中的位置差异推断出来的。为了回应最近的发现,是一致的加法帐户和不一致的减法帐户,本研究明确地测试了减法帐户。该研究测试了分离是否在记忆中以位置表示,正如减法解释所期望的那样。在两个实验中,研究没有发现支持这种可能性的证据。尽管参与者表现出在平均分离方向上错误回忆一组分离成员的偏见,但参与者在回忆定义分离的位置时没有表现出平行偏见。虽然参与者在回忆一组分离的成员时受到用于指定分离的量表范围的影响,但参与者在回忆定义分离的位置时没有受到类似的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Psychologica
Acta Psychologica PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
274
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Psychologica publishes original articles and extended reviews on selected books in any area of experimental psychology. The focus of the Journal is on empirical studies and evaluative review articles that increase the theoretical understanding of human capabilities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信