Reed Catherine L, Nyberg Andrew A, Grubb Jefferson D
Department of Psychology, Claremont McKenna College, Claremont Graduate University, 850 Columbia Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711, USA.
Perception. 2012;41(4):436-46. doi: 10.1068/p7029.
Recent research has demonstrated that our perception of the human body differs from that of inanimate objects. This study investigated whether the visual perception of the human body differs from that of other animate bodies and, if so, whether that difference could be attributed to visual experience and/or embodied experience. To dissociate differential effects of these two types of expertise, inversion effects (recognition of inverted stimuli is slower and less accurate than recognition of upright stimuli) were compared for two types of bodies in postures that varied in typicality: humans in human postures (human-typical), humans in dog postures (human-atypical), dogs in dog postures (dog-typical), and dogs in human postures (dog-atypical). Inversion disrupts global configural processing. Relative changes in the size and presence of inversion effects reflect changes in visual processing. Both visual and embodiment expertise predict larger inversion effects for human over dog postures because we see humans more and we have experience producing human postures. However, our design that crosses body type and typicality leads to distinct predictions for visual and embodied experience. Visual expertise predicts an interaction between typicality and orientation: greater inversion effects should be found for typical over atypical postures regardless of body type. Alternatively, embodiment expertise predicts a body, typicality, and orientation interaction: larger inversion effects should be found for all human postures but only for atypical dog postures because humans can map their bodily experience onto these postures. Accuracy data supported embodiment expertise with the three-way interaction. However, response-time data supported contributions of visual expertise with larger inversion effects for typical over atypical postures. Thus, both types of expertise affect the visual perception of bodies.
最近的研究表明，我们对人体的认知与对无生命物体的认知有所不同。本研究调查了人体的视觉认知是否与其他有生命物体的视觉认知存在差异，如果存在差异，这种差异是否可归因于视觉经验和/或具身经验。为了区分这两种专业知识的不同影响，我们比较了两种处于不同典型性姿势的物体的倒置效应（识别倒置刺激比识别正立刺激更慢且更不准确）：处于人类典型姿势的人（人类典型）、处于狗的姿势的人（人类非典型）、处于狗的典型姿势的狗（狗典型）以及处于人类姿势的狗（狗非典型）。倒置会干扰整体构型处理。倒置效应大小和存在情况的相对变化反映了视觉处理的变化。视觉专业知识和具身经验都预测，相较于狗的姿势，人类姿势的倒置效应更大，因为我们更多地看到人类，并且我们有产生人类姿势的经验。然而，我们交叉身体类型和典型性的设计对视觉经验和具身经验产生了不同的预测。视觉专业知识预测典型性和方向之间存在交互作用：无论身体类型如何，典型姿势的倒置效应应大于非典型姿势。相反，具身经验预测身体、典型性和方向之间存在交互作用：所有人类姿势的倒置效应都应更大，但只有非典型狗姿势的倒置效应会更大，因为人类可以将他们的身体经验映射到这些姿势上。准确性数据支持了具身经验的三方交互作用。然而，反应时间数据支持了视觉专业知识的贡献，即典型姿势的倒置效应大于非典型姿势。因此，这两种专业知识都会影响对身体的视觉认知。
