• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

人类的民间物理学不足以解释他们工具使用行为的差异。

Humans' folk physics is not enough to explain variations in their tool-using behavior.

作者信息

Silva Francisco J, Silva Kathleen M

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Redlands, P.O. Box 3080, 1200 East Colton Avenue, Redlands, California 92373-0999, USA.

出版信息

Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Aug;13(4):689-93. doi: 10.3758/bf03193982.

DOI:10.3758/bf03193982
PMID:17201371
Abstract

Two experiments examined adult humans' folk physics (i.e., their naturally occurring and spontaneous understanding of the physical world) using variations of trap-table problems used to study chimpanzees' folk physics. When presented with these problems, people unnecessarily avoided retrieving a reward by pulling a rake on the side of a table with a trapping hole--even though it was highly unlikely that the hole would trap the reward. However, when the distance between the reward and the trap was sufficiently large and the distance that the reward had to travel to be retrieved was sufficiently short, people preferred to retrieve a reward by pulling the rake on the side of the table with the trap. These results underscore that behavior during tool-use tasks has many possible causes, only one of which might be a subject's folk physics.

摘要

两项实验利用用于研究黑猩猩民间物理学的陷阱桌问题变体,检验了成年人类的民间物理学(即他们对物理世界的自然形成且自发的理解)。当面对这些问题时,人们会不必要地避免通过拉动桌子有陷阱洞一侧的耙子来获取奖励——尽管奖励被洞困住的可能性极小。然而,当奖励与陷阱之间的距离足够大,且奖励被获取所需移动的距离足够短时,人们更倾向于通过拉动桌子有陷阱一侧的耙子来获取奖励。这些结果强调,工具使用任务中的行为有许多可能的原因,其中只有一个可能是受试者的民间物理学。

相似文献

1
Humans' folk physics is not enough to explain variations in their tool-using behavior.人类的民间物理学不足以解释他们工具使用行为的差异。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Aug;13(4):689-93. doi: 10.3758/bf03193982.
2
Methodological-conceptual problems in the study of chimpanzees' folk physics: how studies with adult humans can help.黑猩猩民间物理学研究中的方法概念问题:成人研究如何提供帮助。
Learn Behav. 2005 Feb;33(1):47-58. doi: 10.3758/bf03196049.
3
Humans' folk physics is sensitive to physical connection and contact between a tool and reward.人类的朴素物理学对工具与奖励之间的物理连接和接触很敏感。
Behav Processes. 2008 Mar;77(3):327-33. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2007.08.001. Epub 2007 Aug 21.
4
Adult humans' understanding of support relations: an up-linkage replication.成年人类对支撑关系的理解:一项上行联系复制研究。
Learn Behav. 2014 Dec;42(4):337-47. doi: 10.3758/s13420-014-0151-0.
5
Raking it in: the impact of enculturation on chimpanzee tool use.收获颇丰:文化适应对黑猩猩工具使用的影响
Anim Cogn. 2008 Jan;11(1):83-97. doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0091-6. Epub 2007 May 22.
6
The cognitive underpinnings of flexible tool use in great apes.大猩猩灵活使用工具的认知基础。
J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2014 Jul;40(3):287-302. doi: 10.1037/xan0000025. Epub 2014 Apr 7.
7
Chimpanzees' constructional praxis (Pan paniscus, P. troglodytes).黑猩猩的建构实践(倭黑猩猩、黑猩猩)。
Primates. 2005 Apr;46(2):103-13. doi: 10.1007/s10329-004-0111-y. Epub 2004 Sep 18.
8
Constraints on the exploitation of the functional properties of objects in expert tool-using chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).对黑猩猩(Pan troglodytes)专家型工具使用中物体功能特性利用的限制。
Cortex. 2016 Sep;82:11-23. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2016.05.011. Epub 2016 May 24.
9
Tubes, tables and traps: great apes solve two functionally equivalent trap tasks but show no evidence of transfer across tasks.管道、桌子与陷阱:大猩猩解决了两个功能等效的陷阱任务,但没有表现出任务间迁移的证据。
Anim Cogn. 2008 Jul;11(3):423-30. doi: 10.1007/s10071-007-0132-1. Epub 2008 Jan 9.
10
Space or physics? Children use physical reasoning to solve the trap problem from 2.5 years of age.空间还是物理?儿童从2.5岁起就运用物理推理来解决陷阱问题。
Dev Psychol. 2014 Jul;50(7):1951-62. doi: 10.1037/a0036695. Epub 2014 Apr 28.

引用本文的文献

1
What Human Planning Can Tell Us About Animal Planning: An Empirical Case.人类规划能让我们了解动物规划的哪些方面:一个实证案例。
Front Psychol. 2020 Apr 3;11:635. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00635. eCollection 2020.
2
Navigation outside of the box: what the lab can learn from the field and what the field can learn from the lab.超越常规的导航:实验室可以从野外学到什么,以及野外可以从实验室学到什么。
Mov Ecol. 2014 Feb 3;2(1):3. doi: 10.1186/2051-3933-2-3. eCollection 2014.
3
Task-specific modulation of adult humans' tool preferences: number of choices and size of the problem.

本文引用的文献

1
Choosing and using tools: capuchins (Cebus apella) use a different metric than tamarins (Saguinus oedipus).选择和使用工具:卷尾猴(僧帽猴属)使用的衡量标准与狨猴(普通狨)不同。
J Comp Psychol. 2005 May;119(2):210-9. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.119.2.210.
2
Methodological-conceptual problems in the study of chimpanzees' folk physics: how studies with adult humans can help.黑猩猩民间物理学研究中的方法概念问题:成人研究如何提供帮助。
Learn Behav. 2005 Feb;33(1):47-58. doi: 10.3758/bf03196049.
3
Selection of tool diameter by New Caledonian crows Corvus moneduloides.
成人工具偏好的特定任务调节:选择数量与问题规模
Learn Behav. 2015 Mar;43(1):44-53. doi: 10.3758/s13420-014-0160-z.
4
Adult humans' understanding of support relations: an up-linkage replication.成年人类对支撑关系的理解:一项上行联系复制研究。
Learn Behav. 2014 Dec;42(4):337-47. doi: 10.3758/s13420-014-0151-0.
5
More but not less uncertainty makes adult humans' tool selections more similar to those reported with crows.更多而非更少的不确定性使得成年人类的工具选择更类似于那些有关乌鸦的报道。
Learn Behav. 2012 Dec;40(4):494-506. doi: 10.3758/s13420-012-0069-3.
新喀鸦(Corvus moneduloides)对工具直径的选择。
Anim Cogn. 2004 Apr;7(2):121-7. doi: 10.1007/s10071-003-0202-y. Epub 2003 Nov 29.
4
Lack of comprehension of cause-effect relations in tool-using capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella).卷尾猴(僧帽猴)在使用工具时对因果关系缺乏理解。
J Comp Psychol. 1994 Mar;108(1):15-22. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.108.1.15.
5
Comprehension of cause-effect relations in a tool-using task by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).黑猩猩(Pan troglodytes)在工具使用任务中对因果关系的理解。
J Comp Psychol. 1995 Mar;109(1):18-26. doi: 10.1037/0735-7036.109.1.18.
6
Acquisition, generalization, and discrimination reversal of a natural concept.一个自然概念的习得、泛化和辨别逆转
J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1979 Apr;5(2):116-29. doi: 10.1037//0097-7403.5.2.116.