Literature DB >> 26551519

The extent of default visual perspective taking in complex layouts.

Lewis J Baker1, Daniel T Levin1, Megan M Saylor1.   

Abstract

Emerging research suggests that visual perspective taking might be based in part on a default, early developing cognitive process. This hypothesis receives support from experiments demonstrating that adults experience interference from task-irrelevant perspectives of depicted agents even when participants are making judgments about their own perspective. However, a number of recent articles conclude that this self-judgment interference effect may be because of simple directional cues alone, and might, therefore, not reflect processes specific to visual perspective taking. In 3 studies, we demonstrate that self-judgment interference is constrained by agents' apparent line-of-sight access to subspaces in realistic rendered scenes. Participants displayed processing costs when their perspective conflicted with that of an avatar, who faced in the direction of all possible targets but could not see some of the targets because of occlusion. This interference effect occurred using 2 different configurations of occluders, and disappeared when windows were added to the occluders, allowing avatars line of sight access to all of the targets visible to the participant. These results demonstrate that default perspective taking is not attributable to directional cues alone but instead reflects a relatively sophisticated calculation of an agent's line of sight. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26551519     DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000164

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  8 in total

1.  Visual perspective-taking in complex natural scenes.

Authors:  Paola Del Sette; Markus Bindemann; Heather J Ferguson
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 2.138

2.  An objective neural signature of rapid perspective taking.

Authors:  Alexy A Beck; Bruno Rossion; Dana Samson
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Does altercentric interference rely on mentalizing?: Results from two level-1 perspective-taking tasks.

Authors:  Julia Marshall; Anton Gollwitzer; Laurie R Santos
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-03-22       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Secret of the Masters: Young Chess Players Show Advanced Visual Perspective Taking.

Authors:  Qiyang Gao; Wei Chen; Zhenlin Wang; Dan Lin
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-10-24

5.  Spontaneous Perspective Taking in Humans?

Authors:  Geoff G Cole; Mark A Atkinson; Antonia D C D'Souza; Daniel T Smith
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2017-06-16

6.  I Don't See It Your Way: The Dot Perspective Task Does Not Gauge Spontaneous Perspective Taking.

Authors:  Stephen R H Langton
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2018-02-08

7.  Implicit Mentalising during Level-1 Visual Perspective-Taking Indicated by Dissociation with Attention Orienting.

Authors:  Mark R Gardner; Aiste P Bileviciute; Caroline J Edmonds
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2018-01-20

8.  Perspective-taking is spontaneous but not automatic.

Authors:  Cathleen O'Grady; Thom Scott-Phillips; Suilin Lavelle; Kenny Smith
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2020-07-28       Impact factor: 2.143

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.