图片辨别实验有什么用?

Pub Date : 2010-01-01 DOI:10.3819/CCBR.2010.50010
S. Lea
{"title":"图片辨别实验有什么用?","authors":"S. Lea","doi":"10.3819/CCBR.2010.50010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"If we want to know whether it is useful to examine picture set discriminations, we need to ask which of these reasons lies behind the experiment in question. Of course, things are never as simple as that. Researchers are not always either clear or consistent about why we do experiments, and often more than one of these motivations may be detectable in the design and description of their research. Furthermore, those who read and cite research often attribute motives to the researchers that they did not in fact hold, or interpret results in ways that the original authors would not endorse. Nonetheless, the research techniques that are appropriate depend critically on which of these motivations are operative, and it follows that how we should assess the experiments and our results depends critically on which of these goals they are aiming at. In this commentary, I argue that the underlying motivation for most of the research that Weisman and Spetch (2010) discuss is (c) above, to investigate object representation. However, much of Weisman and Spetch’s (2010) critique assumes that it is (a), to investigate the discriminability of the real objects. They build a damning case against the use of much of the published research to answer that question. But it is not clear that there is anyone in the dock – and in any case, it will be argued below that it is not improper to argue from the discriminability of pictures to the discriminability of the objects depicted, though the converse argument does indeed fail. Weisman and Spetch (2010) also argue strongly for the use of playback experiments, which are indeed the most usual and useful method for answering questions driven by (b) above, discovering the releasers of natural responses, but of limited use if what we are really interested in is object representation.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3819/CCBR.2010.50010","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What's the use of picture discrimination experiments?\",\"authors\":\"S. Lea\",\"doi\":\"10.3819/CCBR.2010.50010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"If we want to know whether it is useful to examine picture set discriminations, we need to ask which of these reasons lies behind the experiment in question. Of course, things are never as simple as that. Researchers are not always either clear or consistent about why we do experiments, and often more than one of these motivations may be detectable in the design and description of their research. Furthermore, those who read and cite research often attribute motives to the researchers that they did not in fact hold, or interpret results in ways that the original authors would not endorse. Nonetheless, the research techniques that are appropriate depend critically on which of these motivations are operative, and it follows that how we should assess the experiments and our results depends critically on which of these goals they are aiming at. In this commentary, I argue that the underlying motivation for most of the research that Weisman and Spetch (2010) discuss is (c) above, to investigate object representation. However, much of Weisman and Spetch’s (2010) critique assumes that it is (a), to investigate the discriminability of the real objects. They build a damning case against the use of much of the published research to answer that question. But it is not clear that there is anyone in the dock – and in any case, it will be argued below that it is not improper to argue from the discriminability of pictures to the discriminability of the objects depicted, though the converse argument does indeed fail. Weisman and Spetch (2010) also argue strongly for the use of playback experiments, which are indeed the most usual and useful method for answering questions driven by (b) above, discovering the releasers of natural responses, but of limited use if what we are really interested in is object representation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3819/CCBR.2010.50010\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3819/CCBR.2010.50010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3819/CCBR.2010.50010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

如果我们想知道检查图片集区分是否有用,我们需要问一下这些原因中的哪一个是实验背后的原因。当然,事情从来没有那么简单。研究人员并不总是清楚或一致地知道我们为什么要做实验,而且通常在他们的研究设计和描述中可以发现不止一种动机。此外,那些阅读和引用研究成果的人经常将动机归因于他们实际上并不持有的研究人员,或者以原作者不赞同的方式解释结果。然而,适当的研究技术主要取决于这些动机中的哪一个是有效的,因此,我们应该如何评估实验和我们的结果主要取决于它们所针对的目标。在这篇评论中,我认为Weisman和Spetch(2010)讨论的大多数研究的潜在动机是(c),调查对象表征。然而,Weisman和Spetch(2010)的大部分批评都假设它是(a),调查真实物体的可辨别性。他们提出了一个确凿的证据,反对使用大量已发表的研究来回答这个问题。但不清楚是否有人在被告席上——无论如何,下面将讨论,从图片的可辨别性论证到所描绘物体的可辨别性论证并不是不恰当的,尽管相反的论证确实失败了。Weisman和Spetch(2010)也强烈主张使用回放实验,这确实是回答上述(b)驱动的问题的最常用和有用的方法,发现自然反应的释放,但如果我们真正感兴趣的是对象表示,则使用有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
What's the use of picture discrimination experiments?
If we want to know whether it is useful to examine picture set discriminations, we need to ask which of these reasons lies behind the experiment in question. Of course, things are never as simple as that. Researchers are not always either clear or consistent about why we do experiments, and often more than one of these motivations may be detectable in the design and description of their research. Furthermore, those who read and cite research often attribute motives to the researchers that they did not in fact hold, or interpret results in ways that the original authors would not endorse. Nonetheless, the research techniques that are appropriate depend critically on which of these motivations are operative, and it follows that how we should assess the experiments and our results depends critically on which of these goals they are aiming at. In this commentary, I argue that the underlying motivation for most of the research that Weisman and Spetch (2010) discuss is (c) above, to investigate object representation. However, much of Weisman and Spetch’s (2010) critique assumes that it is (a), to investigate the discriminability of the real objects. They build a damning case against the use of much of the published research to answer that question. But it is not clear that there is anyone in the dock – and in any case, it will be argued below that it is not improper to argue from the discriminability of pictures to the discriminability of the objects depicted, though the converse argument does indeed fail. Weisman and Spetch (2010) also argue strongly for the use of playback experiments, which are indeed the most usual and useful method for answering questions driven by (b) above, discovering the releasers of natural responses, but of limited use if what we are really interested in is object representation.
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
×
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