基于合成平均刺激的平均表征机制——来自平均面孔吸引力的证据

删除或更新信息，请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01

田欣然¹, 侯文霞¹, 欧玉晓¹, 易冰¹, 陈文锋¹(

), 尚俊辰²(

)

¹中国人民大学心理学系, 北京 100872
²东南大学人文学院医学人文学系, 南京 211189

收稿日期:2020-06-04出版日期:2021-07-25发布日期:2021-05-24
通讯作者:陈文锋,尚俊辰E-mail:wchen@ruc.edu.cn;junchen_20081@163.com

基金资助:中国人民大学科学研究基金(中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助);中国人民大学科学研究基金(18XNLG10);中国人民大学科学研究基金(19XNLG20);国家自然科学基金(31400869);辽宁省社会科学规划基金(L19BSH005);中国人民大学“双一流”跨学科重大创新规划平台“哲学与认知科学交叉平台”

Average percept in ensemble perception is based on morphed average object: Evidence from average facial attractiveness

TIAN Xinran¹, HOU Wenxia¹, OU Yuxiao¹, YI Bing¹, CEHN Wenfeng¹(

), SHANG Junchen²(

)

¹Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
²Department of Medical Humanities, School of Humanities, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China

Received:2020-06-04Online:2021-07-25Published:2021-05-24
Contact:CEHN Wenfeng,SHANG Junchen E-mail:wchen@ruc.edu.cn;junchen_20081@163.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 人类能够快速提取集合中的统计信息, 形成平均表征。对于平均表征的产生机制, 研究者提出整合集合成员以合成平均刺激, 或计算集合成员特征值的平均值两种观点。以往研究中合成的平均刺激的特征值和计算成员特征值的平均值两种方式的结果相似, 难以区分两种观点。由于多个面孔的吸引力评分的均值与用这些面孔合成的平均面孔的吸引力评分存在差异, 本研究使用经典的平均辨别任务(实验1和2)和吸引力评价任务(实验3和4)为平均表征的产生来源于合成平均刺激的观点提供了支持证据。4个实验分别采用大容量面孔集合和小容量面孔集合探讨平均表征的形成机制, 结果发现大、小集合都形成了平均刺激, 并且平均表征的评定和加工可能更多依赖合成的平均刺激, 而非简单的对成员特征值进行平均; 此外, 集合吸引力出现了高评现象, 但小集合高评现象更少出现, 说明平均刺激的作用受到集合大小的影响。本研究为集合平均表征的形成机制和面孔集合吸引力高评现象的产生机制提供了新证据。

图/表 6

图1实验1、2流程图

图2扩散模型(翻译自Ratcliff & McKoon, 2008, Figure 2)。图中展示了扩散模型的3条路径样例。信息从起始点(z)以平均速率(v)开始逐渐累积, 直到达到反应A的阈限(a)或反应B的阈限(0)。由于随机噪音, 这些路径在每个试次之间都有所变异。

图3不同条件下被试判断平均面孔吸引力更高的比例注：G1为不包含平均面孔的集合、G2为包含平均面孔的集合。

图4实验1、实验2获得的层级扩散模型拟合结果注：G1为不包含平均面孔的集合、G2为包含平均面孔的集合

图5实验3、4流程图

图6实验3、4吸引力评分结果注：M1为不包含平均面孔的集合的成员均值、M2为不包含物理平均面孔集合但将平均面孔计算在内的成员均值、G1为不包含平均面孔的集合、G2为包含平均面孔的集合、Avg为平均面孔。

参考文献 40

[1]	Abbas, Z.-A., & Duchaine, B. (2008). The role of holistic processing in judgments of facial attractiveness. Perception, 37(8), 1187-1196.
[2]	Alvarez, G. A. (2011). Representing multiple objects as an ensemble enhances visual cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(3), 122-131. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.003 URL
[3]	Alvarez, G. A., & Oliva, A. (2008). The representation of simple ensemble visual features outside the focus of attention. Psychological Science, 19(4), 392-398. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02098.xpmid: 18399893
[4]	Anderson, N. H. (1965). Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(4), 394-400. pmid: 5826027
[5]	Anderson, N. H., Lindner, R., & Lopes, L. L. (1973). Integration theory applied to judgments of group attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(3), 400-408. pmid: 4710110
[6]	Ariely, D. (2001). Seeing sets: Representation by statistical properties. Psychological Science, 12(2), 157-162. pmid: 11340926
[7]	Bauer, B. (2009). Does Stevens’s power law for brightness extend to perceptual brightness averaging? Psychological Record, 59(2), 171-185. doi: 10.1007/BF03395657 URL
[8]	Bauer, B. (2017). Perceptual averaging of line length: Effects of concurrent digit memory load. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 79(8), 2510-2522.
[9]	Brady, T. F., & Alvarez, G. A. (2015). No evidence for a fixed object limit in working memory: Spatial ensemble representations inflate estimates of working memory capacity for complex objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(3), 921-929. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000075 URL
[10]	Carragher, D. J., Lawrence, B. J., Thomas, N. A., & Nicholls, M. E. R. (2018). Visuospatial asymmetries do not modulate the cheerleader effect. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 2548. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-20784-5 URL
[11]	de Fockert, J.W., & Marchant, A. P. (2008). Attention modulates set representation by statistical properties. Perception & Psychophysics, 70(5), 789-794. doi: 10.3758/PP.70.5.789 URL
[12]	Haberman, J., Brady, T. F., & Alvarez, G. A. (2015). Individual differences in ensemble perception reveal multiple, independent levels of ensemble representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 432-446. doi: 10.1037/xge0000053 URL
[13]	Haberman, J., & Whitney, D. (2007). Rapid extraction of mean emotion and gender from sets of faces. Current Biology, 17(17), R751-R753.
[14]	Haberman, J., & Whitney, D. (2009). Seeing the mean: Ensemble coding for sets of faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35(3), 718-734.
[15]	Haberman, J., & Whitney, D. (2012). Ensemble perception: Summarizing the scene and broadening the limits of visual processing. In J. Wolfe & L. Robertson (Eds.), Oxford series in visual cognition. From perception to consciousness: Searching with Anne Treisman (pp. 339-349). Oxford University Press.
[16]	Hochstein, S., & Ahissar, M. (2002). View from the top: Hierarchies and reverse hierarchies in the visual system. Neuron, 36(5), 791-804. pmid: 12467584
[17]	Hochstein, S., Pavlovskaya, M., Bonneh, Y. S., & Soroker, N. (2015). Global statistics are not neglected. Journal of Vision, 15(4), 7. doi: 10.1167/15.4.7pmid: 26288033
[18]	Huang, L. (2015). Statistical properties demand as much attention as object features. Plos One, 10(8), e0131191. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131191 URL
[19]	Ji, L., Chen, W., Loeys, T., & Pourtois, G. (2018). Ensemble representation for multiple facial expressions: Evidence for a capacity limited perceptual process. Journal of Vision, 18(3), 1-19.
[20]	Komori, M., Kawamura, S., & Ishihara, S. (2009). Averageness or symmetry: Which is more important for facial attractiveness? Acta Psychologica, 131(2), 136-142. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.03.008 URL
[21]	Langlois, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1(2), 115-121. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00079.x URL
[22]	Li, H., Ji, L., Tong, K., Ren, N., Chen, W., Liu, C. H., & Fu, X. (2016). Processing of individual items during ensemble coding of facial expressions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1332.
[23]	Luo, A. X., & Zhou, G. (2018). Ensemble perception of facial attractiveness. Journal of Vision, 18(8), 1-19.
[24]	Maule, J., & Franklin, A. (2015). Effects of ensemble complexity and perceptual similarity on rapid averaging of hue. Journal of Vision, 15(4), 6. doi: 10.1167/15.4.6pmid: 26114595
[25]	Myczek, K., & Simons, D. J. (2008). Better than average: Alternatives to statistical summary representations for rapid judgments of average size. Perception & Psychophysics, 70(5), 772-788. doi: 10.3758/PP.70.5.772 URL
[26]	Neumann, M. F., Schweinberger, S. R., & Burton, A. M. (2013). Viewers extract mean and individual identity from sets of famous faces. Cognition, 128(1), 56-63. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.006pmid: 23587844
[27]	O’Toole, A. J., Price, T., Vetter, T., Bartlett, J. C., & Blanz, V. (1999). 3D shape and 2D surface textures of human faces: The role of “averages” in attractiveness and age. Image and Vision Computing, 18(1), 9-19. doi: 10.1016/S0262-8856(99)00012-8 URL
[28]	Parkes, L., Lund, J., Angelucci, A., Solomon, J. A., & Morgan, M. (2001). Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision. Nature Neuroscience, 4(7), 739-744. doi: 10.1038/89532 URL
[29]	Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59-108. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59 URL
[30]	Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20(4), 873-922. pmid: 18085991
[31]	Rhodes, G., Yoshikawa, S., Clark, A., Lee, K., McKay, R., & Akamatsu, S. (2001). Attractiveness of facial averageness and symmetry in non-western cultures: In search of biologically based standards of beauty. Perception, 30(5), 611-625. pmid: 11430245
[32]	Vandekerckhove, J., Tuerlinckx, F., & Lee, M. D. (2011). Hierarchical diffusion models for two-choice response times. Psychological Methods, 16(1), 44-62. doi: 10.1037/a0021765pmid: 21299302
[33]	van Osch, Y., Blanken, I., Meijs, M. H. J., & van Wolferen, J. (2015). A group’s physical attractiveness is greater than the average attractiveness of its members: the group attractiveness effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(4), 559-574. doi: 10.1177/0146167215572799 URL
[34]	Vehtari, A., Gelman, A., Simpson, D., Carpenter, B., & Bürkner, P.-C. (2021). Rank-normalization, folding, and localization: An improved $\widehat{R}$ for assessing convergence of MCMC. Bayesian Analysis, Advance publication (2019). doi: 10.1214/20-BA1221 doi: 10.1214/20-BA1221
[35]	Voss, A., Nagler, M., & Lerche, V. (2013). Diffusion models in experimental psychology: A practical introduction. Experimental Psychology, 60(6), 385-402. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000218 URL
[36]	Walker, D., & Vul, E. (2014). Hierarchical encoding makes individuals in a group seem more attractive. Psychological Science, 25(1), 230-235. doi: 10.1177/0956797613497969pmid: 24163333
[37]	Wang, Y., & Luo, Y. J. (2005). Standardization and assessment of college students’ facial expression of emotion. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13(4), 396-398.
	[王妍, 罗跃嘉. (2005). 大学生面孔表情材料的标准化及其评定. 中国临床心理学杂志, 13(4), 396-398.]
[38]	Whitney, D., & Leib, A. Y. (2018). Ensemble perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 105-129. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044232 URL
[39]	Willis, R. H. (1960). Stimulus pooling and social perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(3), 365-373. doi: 10.1037/h0048912 URL
[40]	Ying, H., Burns, E., Choo, A. M., & Xu, H. (2020). Temporal and spatial ensemble statistics are formed by distinct mechanisms. Cognition, 195, 104128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104128 doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104128 URL