The embodied dynamics of perceptual causality: a slippery slope?

In Michotte's launching displays, while the launcher (object A) seems to move autonomously, the target (object B) seems to be displaced passively. However, the impression of A actively launching B does not persist beyond a certain distance identified as the “radius of action” of A over B. If the target keeps moving beyond the radius of action, it loses its passivity and seems to move autonomously. Here, we manipulated implied friction by drawing (or not) a surface upon which A and B are traveling, and by varying the inclination of this surface in screen- and earth-centered reference frames. Among 72 participants (n = 52 in Experiment 1; n = 20 in Experiment 2), we show that both physical embodiment of the event (looking straight ahead at a screen displaying the event on a vertical plane vs. looking downwards at the event displayed on a horizontal plane) and contextual information (objects moving along a depicted surface or in isolation) affect interpretation of the event and modulate the radius of action of the launcher. Using classical mechanics equations, we show that representational consistency of friction from radius of action responses emphasizes the embodied nature of frictional force in our cognitive architecture.

[1]  Yao-Wen Hsu.  The influence of elderly vision degradation on subjective rating of floor slipperiness , 2016 .

[2]  A. Berthoz,et al.  Weightlessness alters up/down asymmetries in the perception of self-motion , 2013, Experimental Brain Research.

[3]  Geoffrey P Bingham,et al.  Causation, causal perception, and conservation laws , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  R. Shepard.  Ecological constraints on internal representation: resonant kinematics of perceiving, imagining, thinking, and dreaming. , 1984, Psychological review.

[5]  P. White,et al.  Judgments about forces in described interactions between objects. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[6]  Kenneth C. Ludema,et al.  Friction Wear Lubrication: A Textbook in Tribology , 1996 .

[7]  P. White,et al.  Visual Impressions of Pushing and Pulling: The Object Perceived as Causal is Not Always the One That Moves First , 2012, Perception.

[8]  P. White,et al.  The role of activity in visual impressions of causality. , 2006, Acta psychologica.

[9]  R. Baillargeon,et al.  Young infants’ reasoning about physical events involving inert and self-propelled objects , 2009, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  Francesco Lacquaniti,et al.  Anticipating the effects of gravity when intercepting moving objects: differentiating up and down based on nonvisual cues. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[11]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  Are visual texture-selective areas recruited during haptic texture discrimination? , 2013, NeuroImage.

[12]  A. Michotte,et al.  LA CAUSALITE PHYSIQUE EST-ELLE UNE DONNÉE PHÉNOMÉNALE ? , 2016 .

[13]  Giulia Parovel,et al.  The launch effect: is the radius of action a function of the time? , 2002 .

[14]  N. Anderson,et al.  An information integration approach to phenomenal causality , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[15]  T. Hubbard.  Cognitive representation of linear motion: Possible direction and gravity effects in judged displacement , 1990, Memory & cognition.

[16]  P. White,et al.  The experience of force: the role of haptic experience of forces in visual perception of object motion and interactions, mental simulation, and motion-related judgments. , 2012, Psychological bulletin.

[17]  Brett R Fajen,et al.  The scaling of information to action in visually guided braking. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[18]  S. Runeson,et al.  Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person and action perception: Expe , 1983 .

[19]  T. L. Hubbard,et al.  Some effects of representational friction, target size, and memory averaging on memory for vertically moving targets. , 1998, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[20]  P. White,et al.  Perceptual Impressions and Mental Simulations of Forces: Reply to Hubbard (2012). , 2012 .

[21]  H. Hecht,et al.  Regularities of the physical world and the absence of their internalization. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[22]  T L Hubbard,et al.  Cognitive representation of motion: evidence for friction and gravity analogues. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[23]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Why can't you tickle yourself? , 2000, Neuroreport.

[24]  Alain Berthoz,et al.  The perception of visually presented yaw and pitch turns: Assessing the contribution of motion, static, and cognitive cues , 2006, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  D. Lakens.  Polarity correspondence in metaphor congruency effects: structural overlap predicts categorization times for bipolar concepts presented in vertical space. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[26]  William H Warren,et al.  Passive vs. active control of rhythmic ball bouncing: the role of visual information. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  Jennifer J. Freyd,et al.  Five hunches about perceptual processes and dynamic representations , 1993 .

[28]  Francesco Lacquaniti,et al.  When Up Is Down in 0g: How Gravity Sensing Affects the Timing of Interceptive Actions , 2012, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[29]  Andrew D. Wilson,et al.  Embodied Cognition is Not What you Think it is , 2013, Front. Psychology.

[30]  Margaret Wilson,et al.  Six views of embodied cognition , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[31]  Sharlene D. Newman,et al.  Imagining material versus geometric properties of objects: an fMRI study. , 2005, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[32]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Motor prediction , 2001, Current Biology.

[33]  D. Proffitt.  Embodied Perception and the Economy of Action , 2006, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[34]  Larry Shapiro.  The Embodied Cognition Research Programme , 2007 .

[35]  Timothy L. Hubbard,et al.  Target size and displacement along the axis of implied gravitational attraction : Effects of implied weight and evidence of representational gravity , 1997 .

[36]  J L Dannemiller,et al.  Role of image acceleration in judging landing location of free-falling projectiles. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[37]  Karen E Adolph,et al.  Gauging possibilities for action based on friction underfoot. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[38]  R. Shepard.  Perceptual-cognitive universals as reflections of the world. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[39]  H.Harvey Cohen,et al.  Psychophysical assessment of the perceived slipperiness of floor tile surfaces in a laboratory setting , 1994 .

[40]  T. Hubbard,et al.  Environmental invariants in the representation of motion: Implied dynamics and representational momentum, gravity, friction, and centripetal force , 1995, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[41]  Vikash K. Mansinghka,et al.  Reconciling intuitive physics and Newtonian mechanics for colliding objects. , 2013, Psychological review.

[42]  M. Bertamini,et al.  Understanding projectile acceleration. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[43]  J. Freyd.  Dynamic mental representations. , 1987, Psychological review.

[44]  P. White.  Perception of forces exerted by objects in collision events. , 2009, Psychological review.

[45]  Jirí Filip,et al.  Visual Texture , 2013, Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[46]  P. White,et al.  The impetus theory in judgments about object motion: A new perspective , 2012, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[47]  D. G. Boyle,et al.  THE CONCEPT OF THE ‘RADIUS OF ACTION’ IN THE CAUSAL IMPRESSION , 1961 .

[48]  M. Nagai,et al.  Larger forward memory displacement in the direction of gravity , 2002 .

[49]  S. Vereza.  Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought , 2001 .

[50]  G. Lakoff,et al.  The Brain's concepts: the role of the Sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge , 2005, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[51]  A. Michotte.  The perception of causality , 1963 .

[52]  A. Schlottmann,et al.  Perceived physical and social causality in animated motions: spontaneous reports and ratings. , 2006, Acta psychologica.

[53]  Clara Casco,et al.  The psychophysical law of speed estimation in Michotte’s causal events , 2006, Vision Research.

[54]  R. Shepard,et al.  Second-order isomorphism of internal representations: Shapes of states ☆ , 1970 .

[55]  M. Hegarty,et al.  Impetus beliefs as default heuristics: Dissociation between explicit and implicit knowledge about motion , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[56]  M YELA.  [Nature of the radius of action in the impression of mechanical causality]. , 1954, Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique.

[57]  Joseph McIntyre,et al.  Egocentric and allocentric reference frames for catching a falling object , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[58]  R. C. Oldfield.  THE PERCEPTION OF CAUSALITY , 1963 .

[59]  M. Lesch,et al.  Visually based perceptions of slipperiness: Underlying cues, consistency and relationship to coefficient of friction , 2008, Ergonomics.

[60]  Eugene Volokh,et al.  The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope , 2003 .

[61]  M. McCloskey.  Naive Theories of Motion. , 1982 .

[62]  M K Kaiser,et al.  Visual acceleration detection: Effect of sign and motion orientation , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[63]  Barbara Kaup,et al.  What's up? Emotion-specific activation of vertical space during language processing. , 2015, Acta psychologica.

[64]  Randall Stilla,et al.  Selective visuo‐haptic processing of shape and texture , 2008, Human brain mapping.