Belief revision and way-finding
Belief revision and way-finding
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s10339-013-0577-x
复制
发表时间：
2013-09
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
L. Bucher;Florian Röser;Jelica Nejasmic;K. Hamburger
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. Bucher;Florian Röser;Jelica Nejasmic;K. Hamburger
当真实信息与之前的想法相矛盾时，就需要对信念进行修正。在寻路过程中，信念修正经常发生，例如，当旅行路线将一个人引入歧途时，而不是到达他选择的目的地。在过去的认知研究中，信念修正和寻路的主题被孤立地对待。在这里，我们介绍了一种将这两个领域联系起来的方法，并评估在寻路过程中发生的信念修正。我们报告了两个实验的结果，这些实验将参与者置于（虚拟）情境中，其中先前学习的路线描述的元素与实际环境不匹配（因此需要修改先前持有的信念）。实验1将参与者置于一个高度人工的虚拟环境中，其中用于导航的地标具有低程度的语义显著性（各种颜色的房屋）。实验2将受试者置于一个逼真的环境中，其中用于导航的对象是众所周知的地标（如埃菲尔铁塔），因此具有高度的语义显著性。在这两个实验中，参与者都面临着t形路口，在那里，一个本该指示正确路线的地标被发现位于一个意想不到的位置。实验结果表明，在这种情况下，参与者的路径选择受到相关初始指令结构差异的影响。更准确地说，参与者选择的路线受到相关地标是否被描述为在他们被指示转弯时位于路径的同一侧（一致情况）或在他们被指示转弯时位于路径的另一侧（不一致情况）的影响。
Belief revision is required when veridical information surfaces that contradicts what was previously thought to be the case. In way-finding, belief revision frequently occurs, for example, when the travelled route has led one astray, instead of to one’s chosen destination. In past cognitive research, the topics of belief revision and way-finding have been treated in isolation. Here, we introduce an approach for linking the two fields and assess belief revision as it occurs in the process of way-finding. We report the results of two experiments that put participants in (virtual) situations where elements of a previously learned route description do not match the actual environment (thereby requiring the revision of a previously held belief). Experiment 1 puts participants in a highly artificial virtual environment where the landmarks to be used in navigation have a low degree of semantic salience (houses of various color). Experiment 2 puts subjects in a photorealistic environment where the objects to be used in navigation are well-known landmarks (such as the Eiffel Tower) and thus have a high degree of semantic salience. In both experiments, participants are confronted with T-junctions, where a landmark that was expected to indicate the correct route is discovered to be in an unexpected location. The results of the experiments show that a participant’s choice of route, in such cases, is affected by differences in the structure of the relevant initial instruction. More precisely, the route chosen by participants is affected by whether the relevant landmark was described as being on the same side of the path as they were instructed to turn (congruent case) or as located on the opposite side of the path as they were instructed to turn (incongruent case).