Durgin Frank H, Li Zhi
Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, PA 19081, USA.
J Vis. 2011 Jul 22;11(8):13. doi: 10.1167/11.8.13.
Three experimental paradigms were used to investigate the perception of orientation relative to internal categorical standards of vertical and horizontal. In Experiment 1, magnitude estimation of orientation (in degrees) relative to vertical and horizontal replicated a previously reported spatial orientation bias also measured using verbal report: Orientations appear farther from horizontal than they are, whether numeric judgments are made relative to vertical or to horizontal. Analyses of verbal response patterns, however, suggested that verbal reports underestimate the true spatial bias. A non-verbal orientation bisection task (Experiment 2) confirmed that spatial errors are not due to numeric coding and are larger than the 6° error replicated using verbal methods. A spatial error of 8.6° was found in the bisection task, such that an orientation of about 36.4° from horizontal appears equidistant from vertical and horizontal. Finally, using a categorization ("ABX") paradigm in Experiment 3, it was found that there is less memory confusability for orientations near horizontal than for orientations near vertical. Thus, three different types of measures, two of them non-verbal, provide converging evidence that the coding of orientation relative to the internal standards of horizontal and vertical is asymmetrically biased and that horizontal appears to be the privileged axis.
采用了三种实验范式来研究相对于垂直和水平的内部分类标准的方向感知。在实验1中,相对于垂直和水平方向(以度为单位)的方向大小估计重复了先前报告的也使用言语报告测量的空间方向偏差:无论数字判断是相对于垂直方向还是水平方向做出,方向看起来离水平方向比实际更远。然而,对言语反应模式的分析表明,言语报告低估了真正的空间偏差。一项非言语方向二等分任务(实验2)证实,空间误差不是由于数字编码,并且比使用言语方法重复的6°误差更大。在二等分任务中发现了8.6°的空间误差,使得与水平方向成约36.4°的方向看起来与垂直方向和水平方向等距。最后,在实验3中使用分类(“ABX”)范式,发现与垂直方向附近的方向相比,水平方向附近的方向的记忆混淆性更小。因此,三种不同类型的测量方法,其中两种是非言语的,提供了趋同的证据,即相对于水平和垂直的内部标准的方向编码存在不对称偏差,并且水平方向似乎是优先轴。