Gains and Losses: Is Figure Ground Perception Influenced by Motivation or Learned Value?
Gains and Losses: Is Figure Ground Perception Influenced by Motivation or Learned Value?
复制标题
得与失：人物地面感知是否受到动机或学习价值的影响？
DOI：
10.1167/15.12.332
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Burrola M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Burrola M
习得的价值会影响人对景物的感知吗？参与者学会了将概率的得失与新奇的形状联系起来。形状以固定的成对呈现：两对赢的，两对输的，和两对控制的。在输赢组合中，一种形状具有ap（80%）价值（赢：+ 10美分，输：-10美分），另一种形状具有ap（20%）价值。一个赢（输）对中的p（80%）形状的补体是另一个赢（输）对中的p（20%）形状。受试者学会了通过选择p（80%）赢的形状和p（20%）输的形状来最大化他们的收入。接下来，参与者报告了在两部分展示中感知到的图形-背景组织，在相同的赢（输）条件下，80%的赢（输）形状与20%的输（赢）形状竞争图形状态。如果学习值影响图形分配，则应将相对高值的形状视为图形（80%获胜形状，20%失败形状）。相反，参与者更有可能将低价值的形状视为图形，这在win条件下重复的8次图形-背景显示中得到了证明(57%,p<。04)，但在损失条件下只有4次重复(58%,p<。02)。因此，没有观察到价值的预期效应：当一个低价值的形状与一个高价值的形状竞争形象地位时，低价值的形状获胜。这是参与者被激励去避免的形状[p（-10美分）= 80%的输家组和p（+ 10美分）= 20%的赢家组]。参与者在学习过程中被激励选择的高价值形状（因为它使收入最大化）在数字分配的竞争中失败了。我们的研究结果首次表明，动机，特别是避免的动机，会影响图形分配。为什么动机避免而不是动机选择影响人物分配？决策文献表明，损失比收益更大；如果我们认为低p（收益）相对于高p（收益）是一种损失，那么我们的结果与人类的倾向是一致的。
Can learned value influence figure-ground perception? Participants learned to associate probabilistic gains and losses with novel shapes. Shapes were presented in fixed pairs: two win pairs, two loss pairs, and two control pairs. Within win and loss pairs, one shape had ap (80%) value (win:+ 10¢; loss:-10¢) the other had ap (20%) value. The complement of the p (80%)-shape in one win (loss) pair was the p (20%)-shape in the other win (loss) pair. Subjects learned to maximize their earnings by choosing the p (80%)-win shape and the p (20%)-loss shape. Next, participants reported on perceived figure-ground organization of bipartite displays in which an 80% win (loss) shape competed for figural status with a 20% shape in the same win (loss) condition. If learned value influences figure assignment, the relatively high-value shape should be seen as the figure (80% win shape, 20% loss shape). Instead, participants were more likely to perceive the low-value shape as figure, evident across eight repetitions of figure-ground displays in the win condition (57%, p<. 04), but only four repetitions in the loss condition (58%, p<. 02). Thus, the expected effect of value was not observed: When a low-value shape competed for figural status with a high-value shape, the low-value shape won. This is the shape participants were motivated to avoid [p (-10¢)= 80% in loss pairs and p (+ 10¢)= 20% in win pairs]. The high-value shape that participants were motivated to choose during learning (because it maximized earnings) lost the competition for figure assignment. Our results are the first to show that motivation, particularly motivation to avoid, influences figure assignment. Why does motivation to avoid rather than motivation to choose influence figure assignment? The decision-making literature shows that losses loom greater than gains; our results are consistent with that human tendency provided that we consider a low p (gain) a loss relative to a high p (gain).