Advertisement

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

, Volume 81, Issue 1, pp 158–172 | Cite as

Visual perspective taking for avatars in a Simon task

  • Christian BöffelEmail author
  • Jochen Müsseler
Article
  • 158 Downloads

Abstract

In modern digital applications, users often interact with virtual representations of themselves or others, called avatars. We examined how these avatars and their perspectives influence stimulus–response compatibility in a Simon task. Participants responded to light/dark blue stimuli with left/right key presses in the presence of a task-irrelevant avatar. Changes in stimulus–response compatibility were used to quantify changes in the mental representation of the task and perspective taking toward this avatar. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that perspective taking for an avatar occurred in orthogonal stimulus–response mappings, causing a compatibility effect from the avatar’s point of view. In the following two experiments we introduced a larger variety of angular disparities between the participant and avatar. In Experiment 3, the Simon effect with lateralized stimulus positions remained largely unaffected by the avatar, pointing toward an absence of perspective taking. In Experiment 4, after avatar hand movements were added in order to strengthen the participants’ sense of agency over the avatar, a spatial compatibility effect from the avatar’s perspective was observed again, and hints of the selective use of perspective taking on a trial-by-trial basis were found. Overall, the results indicate that users can incorporate the perspective of an avatar into their mental representation of a situation, even when this perspective is unnecessary to complete a task, but that certain contextual requirements have to be met.

Keywords

Avatar Orthogonal compatibility Perspective taking Simon effect Stimulus–response compatibility Action effects 

References

  1. Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.2.365 Google Scholar
  2. Avraamides, M. N., Hatzipanayioti, A., & Galati, A. (2015). What’s so difficult with adopting imagined perspectives? Cognitive Processing, 16, 121–124.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0728-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, D. W., & Miller, J. (1982). Stimulus–response compatibility and the motor system. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34A, 367–380.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748208400849 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Böffel, C., & Müsseler, J. (2018). Perceived ownership of avatars influences visual perspective taking, Frontiers in Psychology, 9(May), 1–9.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00743
  5. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brebner, J., Shephard, M., & Cairney, P. (1972). Spatial relationships and S–R compatibility. Acta Psychologica, 36, 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(72)90040-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 45–73.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2005). Representing response position relative to display location: Influence on orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 839–864.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980443000359 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cho, Y. S., Proctor, R. W., & Yamaguchi, M. (2008). Influences of response position and hand posture on the orthogonal Simon effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1020–1035.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701467979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, L. A., & Shepard, R. N. (1973). The time required to prepare for a rotated stimulus. Memory & Cognition, 1, 246–250.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S–R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483–492.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054967 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flavell, J. H., Green, F. L., Flavell, E. R., Watson, M. W., & Campione, J. C. (1986). Development of knowledge about the appearance–reality distinction. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 51(1), 1–87.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1165866 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franz, E. A., Sebastian, A., Hust, C., & Norris, T. (2008). Viewer perspective affects central bottleneck requirements in spatial translation tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 398–412.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.398 Google Scholar
  15. Freundlieb, M., Kovács, Á. M., & Sebanz, N. (2016). When do humans spontaneously adopt another’s visuospatial perspective? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 401–412.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000153 Google Scholar
  16. Freundlieb, M., Sebanz, N., & Kovács, Á. M. (2017). Out of your sight, out of my mind: Knowledge about another person’s visual access modulates spontaneous visuospatial perspective-taking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1065–1072.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000379 Google Scholar
  17. Gardner, M. R., & Potts, R. (2011). Domain general mechanisms account for imagined transformations of whole body perspective. Acta Psychologica, 137, 371–381.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hedge, A., & Marsh, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response-time. Acta Psychologica, 39, 427–439.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(75)90041-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2004). A dissociation between mental rotation and perspective-taking spatial abilities. Intelligence, 32, 175–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2003.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136, 189–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.04.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hommel, B. (2015). The theory of event coding (TEC) as embodied-cognition framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1318:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01318 Google Scholar
  22. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878, disc. 878–937.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Janczyk, M. (2013). Level 2 perspective taking entails two processes: Evidence from PRP experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1878–1887.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033336
  24. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kunde, W. (2001). Response–effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 387–394.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.27.2.387 Google Scholar
  26. Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lippa, Y., & Adam, J. J. (2001). An explanation of orthogonal S–R compatibility effects that vary with hand or response position: the end-state comfort hypothesis. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 156–174.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. May, M., & Wendt, M. (2013). Visual perspective taking and laterality decisions: Problems and possible solutions. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 549:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00549 Google Scholar
  29. Michelon, P., & Zacks, J. M. (2006). Two kinds of visual perspective taking. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 327–337.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193680 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64.  https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.04.2.p061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Müsseler, J., Kunde, W., Gausepohl, D., & Heuer, H. (2008). Does a tool eliminate spatial compatibility effects? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20, 211–231.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440701275815 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Müsseler, J., Ruhland, L., & Böffel, C. (2018). Reversed effect of spatial compatibility when taking avatar’s perspective. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818799240
  33. Müsseler, J., & Skottke, E.-M. (2011). Compatibility relationships with simple lever tools. Human Factors, 53, 383–390.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811408599 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nishimura, A., & Yokosawa, K. (2006). Orthogonal stimulus–response compatibility effects emerge even when the stimulus position is task irrelevant. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1021–1032.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210500416243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nishimura, A., & Yokosawa, K. (2010). Visual and auditory accessory stimulus offset and the Simon effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 1965–1974.  https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.7.1965 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00366 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3972.701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S–R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020586 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simon, J. R., & Small, A. M., Jr. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 433–435.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sutter, C., & Müsseler, J. (2010). Action control while seeing mirror images of one’s own movements: Effects of perspective on spatial compatibility. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1757–1769.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903511244 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Taylor, A., Flynn, M., Edmonds, C. J., & Gardner, M. R. (2016). Observed bodies generate object-based spatial codes. Acta Psychologica, 169, 71–78.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.05.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tversky, B., & Hard, B. M. (2009). Embodied and disembodied cognition: Spatial perspective-taking. Cognition, 110, 124–129.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weeks, D. J., & Proctor, R. W. (1990). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General General, 119, 355–366.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.119.4.355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weeks, D. J., Proctor, R. W., & Beyak, B. (1995). Stimulus–response compatibility for vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: Evidence for spatial coding. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 367–383.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749508401395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Journal of the American Medical Association, 310, 2191–2194.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PsychologyRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations