FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2400952912> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2400952912 abstract "Real-time Perspective Taking: When Your Decision is Influenced Through Visual Competition Michelle D. Greenwood (mgreenwood@ucmerced.edu) Cognitive and Information Sciences, 5200 North Lake Road Merced, CA 95348 USA Michael J. Spivey (spivey@ucmerced.edu) Cognitive and Information Sciences, 5200 North Lake Road Merced, CA 95348 USA Abstract People often tacitly assume an egocentric perspective when describing spatial scenes, and then use ambiguous descriptions (e.g., “The bottle is on the left.”). However, they can also take an alternative perspective, for instance referencing an agent that is present in the scene to reduce ambiguity (e.g., “The bottle is on your right.”). In this experiment, participants viewed a computer screen that contained a photograph of a basket on a table. Participants were given ambiguous spatial relationship directions for placing the objects (trials) in the scene (e.g., “Place the X to the right of the basket.”). The goal was to determine, through mousetracking, how often people choose an other-centric perspective, and if they chose an egocentric perspective did they consider other viewpoints. Results showed that the visual input (conditions) influenced the initiation times and maximum deviation of an egocentric response when a person was present in the scene compared to when a person was absent. Keywords: perspective taking; viewpoint; affordances; other-centric Introduction In everyday conversation, spatial descriptions are ubiquitous. People often have to explain where they are in physical space, including their position relative to other people or objects. Sometimes these descriptions are ambiguous. For example, imagine that Bob and Julie are sitting on opposite ends of a table, and two coffee cups are placed on the table. Bob says to Julie, “The cup on the right is mine.” Which cup is Bob referring to? The cup on Bob’s right, or the cup on Julie’s right? The answer depends on perspective. People often take an egocentric perspective when describing a spatial scene (Piaget & Inhelder, 1956; Pick & Lockman, 1981; Shelton & McNamara, 1997). However, they can also choose another perspective by adopting the viewpoint of another person or object (e.g., “The dent is on the car’s front left fender”, “A mosquito is on your right shoulder”). Object anchoring is one way people take an other-centric perspective. They use a particular object or person to describe the location of another object or person (e.g., “Mary is on John’s right”) (Schober, 1993; see also Borghi, Glenberg, & Kaschak, 2004). They can also vary intonation patterns or use gesture (Clark, 1996). In recent years, many researchers have argued that the egocentric perspective is the default mechanism in conversation (Hanna, & Tanenhaus 2004; Horton & Keysar, 1996; Keysar, Barr, Balin & Brauner, 2000; Tversky, Lee & Mainwaring, 1999; Nadig & Sedivy, 2002). Critically, however, there are circumstances that give rise to an other- centric perspective (Tversky & Hard, 2009). A considerable amount of psycholinguistic literature has treated the egocentric perspective in language processing as a default mode that is enforced by the cognitive architecture of the language processing system (Epley, Keysar, Van Boven, & Gilovich, 2004; Horton & Keysar, 1996; Keysar et al., 2000). In that account, factors that might encourage an accommodation of another’s perspective come into play during a second stage of processing after an initial egocentric anchoring point has been assumed. An alternative approach has been to treat egocentric biases and “other” centric biases as competing against one another simultaneously and on equal footing (Hanna & Tanenhaus, 2004; Hanna, Tanenhaus, & Trueswell, 2003; Nadig & Sedivy, 2002). Much research shows a preference for egocentric perspective in viewing scenes, but little is known about how or why this occurs. Tversky and Hard (2009) began to explore these questions in a novel study using photographs. Participants viewed pictures of objects (water bottle or book) and explained where the objects were in relation to one another. If a person also appeared in the picture (facing the participant), participants occasionally accommodated that person’s perspective and chose it over their own. Tversky and Hard also manipulated the question to highlight action in the scene, which yielded interesting differences, such as increased other-centric perspective taking. Their findings provide an excellent foundation for exploring the role of viewpoint in spatial descriptions. Choosing another’s perspective when describing a spatial scene seems like a natural way to help achieve mutual understanding when another person is present. But to what extent does this generalize? Previous work (Greenwood, Matlock, Matthews, & Spivey, 2010, 2011, & 2013) suggests participants sometimes take a perspective other than their own when there are" @default.
• W2400952912 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2400952912 creator A5009359203 @default.
• W2400952912 creator A5055093751 @default.
• W2400952912 date "2014-01-01" @default.
• W2400952912 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2400952912 title "Real-time Perspective Taking: When Your Decision is Influenced Through Visual Competition." @default.
• W2400952912 cites W1493270588 @default.
• W2400952912 cites W1933657216 @default.
• W2400952912 cites W1966612647 @default.
• W2400952912 cites W1985682182 @default.
• W2400952912 cites W1995376810 @default.
• W2400952912 cites W2033313063 @default.
• W2400952912 cites W2045437727 @default.
• W2400952912 cites W2049991344 @default.
• W2400952912 cites W2114366548 @default.
• W2400952912 cites W2115009606 @default.
• W2400952912 cites W2154203385 @default.
• W2400952912 cites W2158495800 @default.
• W2400952912 cites W2166126448 @default.
• W2400952912 cites W2573059571 @default.
• W2400952912 cites W3122310065 @default.
• W2400952912 cites W3209383001 @default.
• W2400952912 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2400952912 type Work @default.
• W2400952912 sameAs 2400952912 @default.
• W2400952912 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2400952912 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2400952912 hasAuthorship W2400952912A5009359203 @default.
• W2400952912 hasAuthorship W2400952912A5055093751 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConcept C12713177 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConcept C194995250 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConcept C2780522230 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConceptScore W2400952912C12713177 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConceptScore W2400952912C154945302 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConceptScore W2400952912C15744967 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConceptScore W2400952912C169760540 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConceptScore W2400952912C169900460 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConceptScore W2400952912C180747234 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConceptScore W2400952912C188147891 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConceptScore W2400952912C194995250 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConceptScore W2400952912C199360897 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConceptScore W2400952912C2780522230 @default.
• W2400952912 hasConceptScore W2400952912C41008148 @default.
• W2400952912 hasIssue "36" @default.
• W2400952912 hasLocation W24009529121 @default.
• W2400952912 hasOpenAccess W2400952912 @default.
• W2400952912 hasPrimaryLocation W24009529121 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W1514909417 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W1775807480 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W1909278617 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W1935407116 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W1977782036 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W1990407802 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W2012414214 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W2062140421 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W2093097460 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W2140452186 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W2145437113 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W2152307528 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W2346818191 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W2353757274 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W2366453072 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W2550105461 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W2625865990 @default.
• W2400952912 hasRelatedWork W2774875108 @default.
• W2400952912 hasVolume "36" @default.
• W2400952912 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2400952912 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2400952912 magId "2400952912" @default.
• W2400952912 workType "article" @default.