Judgments about forces in described interactions between objects.

In 4 experiments, participants made judgments about forces exerted and resistances put up by objects involved in described interactions. Two competing hypotheses were tested: (1) that judgments are derived from the same knowledge base that is thought to be the source of perceptual impressions of forces that occur with visual stimuli, and (2) that judgments are generated using simple models or heuristics for deriving force judgments from kinematic information. The results show some similarities with perceptual impression research, particularly that an active object is judged to exert more force on an inactive object than the latter exerts on the former. However, most of the available kinematic information had little or no effect on judgment, supporting the hypothesis that force judgments are generated according to simple rules. Presentation of information about damage to the objects resulted in use of all available kinds of information; this could reflect greater imageability of damage information than kinematic information.

[1]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Physical Imagery: Kinematic versus Dynamic Models , 1999, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  P. Haggard.  Conscious intention and motor cognition , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Abnormalities in the awareness of action , 2002, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[4]  Patrice D. Tremoulet,et al.  Perceptual causality and animacy , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[5]  Jaeho Shim,et al.  Estimation of Lifted Weight and Produced Effort through Perception of Point-Light Display , 2004, Perception.

[6]  M. Leyton.  Symmetry, Causality, Mind , 1999 .

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

[8]  F. Lacquaniti,et al.  Cognitive, perceptual and action-oriented representations of falling objects , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[9]  P. White.  Impressions of force in visual perception of collision events: A test of the causal asymmetry hypothesis , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[11]  C. Frith.  Attention to action and awareness of other minds , 2002, Consciousness and Cognition.

[12]  Joshua B Tenenbaum,et al.  Theory-based causal induction. , 2009, Psychological review.

[13]  R. Arnheim.  Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye, New version , 1955 .

[14]  Peter A. White,et al.  Naive analysis of food web dynamics: a study of causal judgment about complex physical systems , 2000, Cogn. Sci..

[15]  A. Yuille,et al.  Bayesian generic priors for causal learning. , 2008, Psychological review.

[16]  M. Desmurget,et al.  A parietal-premotor network for movement intention and motor awareness , 2009, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  B. Andersson,et al.  The experiential gestalt of causation: a common core to pupils’ preconceptions in science , 1986 .

[18]  H. Krist,et al.  When is the ball going to hit the ground? Duration estimates, eye movements, and mental imagery of object motion. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[20]  L. Allan.  Human contingency judgments: rule based or associative? , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[21]  Ej Wood.  European journal of science education , 1979 .

[22]  D. Gilden.  On the origins of dynamical awareness. , 1991, Psychological review.

[23]  S. Runeson.  On visual perception of dynamic events , 1983 .

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

[25]  A. diSessa.  Toward an Epistemology of Physics , 1993 .

[26]  Crystal D. Oberle,et al.  The Galileo bias: a naive conceptual belief that influences people's perceptions and performance in a ball-dropping task. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  D. Wolpert,et al.  Spatio-Temporal Prediction Modulates the Perception of Self-Produced Stimuli , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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

[29]  Masasi Hattori,et al.  Adaptive Non-Interventional Heuristics for Covariation Detection in Causal Induction: Model Comparison and Rational Analysis , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

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

[31]  P. Cheng.  From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. , 1997 .

[32]  Andrea A. diSessa,et al.  Unlearning Aristotelian Physics: A Study of Knowledge-Based Learning , 1982, Cogn. Sci..

[33]  D. Shanks,et al.  Models of covariation-based causal judgment: A review and synthesis , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[34]  C. Michaels,et al.  Higher order and lower order variables in the visual perception of relative pulling force. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[36]  W. Ahn,et al.  Primacy in causal strength judgments: The effect of initial evidence for generative versus inhibitory relationships , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[37]  Sarah-Jayne Blakemore,et al.  Deluding the motor system , 2003, Consciousness and Cognition.