用头部评估:运动相容性效应

Stefania Moretti, A. Greco
{"title":"用头部评估:运动相容性效应","authors":"Stefania Moretti, A. Greco","doi":"10.1145/3212721.3212853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research within the embodiment perspective has found that cognitive processing proceeds easier when bodily actions (mostly arms motion) are compatible with the conceptual meaning of verbal expressions (concrete or abstract, or with positive and negative values). Facilitation effects involving head motion, however, have not yet been investigated. The present work aims to test the motor compatibility hypothesis between directional head movements, usually performed to communicate agreement and disagreement, and truth evaluation. Five experiments were designed: participants were asked to assess a series of sentences as true or false, according to their meaning (objectively) or on the basis of personal preferences (subjectively), in compatible and incompatible motion conditions and with different response modalities. Response times were shorter only when true sentences, or about a liked content, were moved vertically, and when false sentences, or about a disliked content, were moved horizontally, with the head. Results confirm the hypothesis that higher cognitive processing is grounded in bodily motion, and shed light on the possibility to manipulate vertical and horizontal head movements in order to reveal attitudes.","PeriodicalId":330867,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Movement and Computing","volume":"273 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing with the head: a motor compatibility effect\",\"authors\":\"Stefania Moretti, A. Greco\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3212721.3212853\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Research within the embodiment perspective has found that cognitive processing proceeds easier when bodily actions (mostly arms motion) are compatible with the conceptual meaning of verbal expressions (concrete or abstract, or with positive and negative values). Facilitation effects involving head motion, however, have not yet been investigated. The present work aims to test the motor compatibility hypothesis between directional head movements, usually performed to communicate agreement and disagreement, and truth evaluation. Five experiments were designed: participants were asked to assess a series of sentences as true or false, according to their meaning (objectively) or on the basis of personal preferences (subjectively), in compatible and incompatible motion conditions and with different response modalities. Response times were shorter only when true sentences, or about a liked content, were moved vertically, and when false sentences, or about a disliked content, were moved horizontally, with the head. Results confirm the hypothesis that higher cognitive processing is grounded in bodily motion, and shed light on the possibility to manipulate vertical and horizontal head movements in order to reveal attitudes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":330867,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Movement and Computing\",\"volume\":\"273 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-06-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Movement and Computing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3212721.3212853\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Movement and Computing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3212721.3212853","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

体现视角的研究发现,当身体动作(主要是手臂运动)与口头表达的概念意义(具体或抽象,或积极和消极的价值观)相一致时,认知处理会更容易进行。然而,涉及头部运动的促进效应尚未被研究。本研究旨在验证定向头部运动(通常用于表达同意和不同意)与真相评估之间的运动相容性假设。设计了五个实验:参与者被要求在兼容和不兼容的运动条件和不同的反应方式下,根据它们的意义(客观地)或基于个人偏好(主观地)评估一系列句子的真假。只有当正确的句子或关于喜欢的内容的句子被垂直移动时,以及当错误的句子或关于不喜欢的内容的句子被水平移动时,反应时间才会缩短。研究结果证实了更高层次的认知处理是基于身体运动的假设,并阐明了通过操纵头部的垂直和水平运动来揭示态度的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing with the head: a motor compatibility effect
Research within the embodiment perspective has found that cognitive processing proceeds easier when bodily actions (mostly arms motion) are compatible with the conceptual meaning of verbal expressions (concrete or abstract, or with positive and negative values). Facilitation effects involving head motion, however, have not yet been investigated. The present work aims to test the motor compatibility hypothesis between directional head movements, usually performed to communicate agreement and disagreement, and truth evaluation. Five experiments were designed: participants were asked to assess a series of sentences as true or false, according to their meaning (objectively) or on the basis of personal preferences (subjectively), in compatible and incompatible motion conditions and with different response modalities. Response times were shorter only when true sentences, or about a liked content, were moved vertically, and when false sentences, or about a disliked content, were moved horizontally, with the head. Results confirm the hypothesis that higher cognitive processing is grounded in bodily motion, and shed light on the possibility to manipulate vertical and horizontal head movements in order to reveal attitudes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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