Literature DB >> 30667269

Perception in dynamic scenes: What is your Heider capacity?

Farahnaz A Wick1, Abla Alaoui Soce2, Sahaj Garg3, River C Grace4, Jeremy M Wolfe1.   

Abstract

The classic animation experiment by Heider and Simmel (1944) revealed that humans have a strong tendency to impose narrative even on displays showing interactions between simple geometric shapes. In their most famous animation with three simple shapes, observers almost inevitably interpreted them as rational agents with intentions, desires, and beliefs ("That nasty big triangle!"). Much work on dynamic scenes has identified basic visual properties that can make shapes seem animate. Here, we investigate the limits on the ability to use narrative to share information about animated scenes. We created 30 second Heider-style cartoons with 3-9 items. Item trajectories were generated automatically by a simple set of rules, but without a script. In Experiments 1 and 2, 10 observers wrote short narratives for each cartoon. Next, new observers were shown a cartoon and then presented with a narrative generated for that specific cartoon or one generated for a different cartoon having the same items. Observers rated the fit of the narrative to the cartoon on a scale from 1 (clearly does not fit) to 5 (clearly fits). Performance declined markedly when the number of items was larger than 3. Experiment 3 had observers determine if a short clip of a cartoon came from a longer clip. Experiment 4 had observers determine which of two narratives fit a cartoon. Finally, in Experiment 5, narratives always mentioned every item in a display. In all cases of matching narrative to cartoon, performance drops most dramatically between 3 and 4 items. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30667269      PMCID: PMC6396302          DOI: 10.1037/xge0000557

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen        ISSN: 0022-1015


  44 in total

1.  The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information.

Authors:  G A MILLER
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1956-03       Impact factor: 8.934

2.  Attentional capture by motion onsets is modulated by perceptual load.

Authors:  Joshua D Cosman; Shaun P Vecera
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 3.  Selecting and tracking multiple objects.

Authors:  Jason M Scimeca; Steven L Franconeri
Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci       Date:  2014-12-15

4.  Why don't we see changes?: The role of attentional bottlenecks and limited visual memory.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Andrea Reinecke; Peter Brawn
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2006

5.  The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions.

Authors:  S J Luck; E K Vogel
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1997-11-20       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention.

Authors:  N Lavie
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects.

Authors:  A Treisman; H Schmidt
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1982-01       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Core mechanisms in "theory of mind".

Authors:  Alan M Leslie; Ori Friedman; Tim P German
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 20.229

9.  A predisposition for biological motion in the newborn baby.

Authors:  Francesca Simion; Lucia Regolin; Hermann Bulf
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-01-03       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Category-specific attention for animals reflects ancestral priorities, not expertise.

Authors:  Joshua New; Leda Cosmides; John Tooby
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.