Estimating reachability: Whole body engagement or postural stability?
Estimating reachability: Whole body engagement or postural stability?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0167-9457(00)00016-6
复制
发表时间：
2000-08-01
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Fischer, MH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fischer, MH
当只使用一个自由度时，人们高估了接触物体的最大距离。这种估计偏差可能反映了一个人无法在精神上固定身体剩余的自由度(全身参与)，或者一个人对姿势稳定性的担忧。在实验1中，10名参与者要么直立，要么仰卧，以消除额外的自由度和平衡担忧。他们的任务是估计他们只需伸展手臂就能到达物体的时间。对于身旁的物体，仰卧时估计的可达性偏差减少了。这一结果支持全身参与假说。然而，对于到达头顶以上的人，估计偏差的增加表明姿势稳定性也会影响估计。在实验2中，12名参与者在单腿站立而不是双腿站立时的可达性估计没有被选择性地降低。这一结果可能被解释为与姿势稳定性假说不一致。然而，支撑腿和物体位置之间缺乏相互作用，这与全身参与假说背道而驰。最后，接近的物体似乎总是比离开观察者的物体更远的距离可及。这些结果让人们对可达性估计的单因素描述产生了怀疑。(C)2000 Elsevier Science B.V.保留所有权利。心理信息分类：2221；2330。
People overestimate the maximum distance at which objects can be contacted when utilizing just one degree of freedom. This estimation bias may reflect either an inability to mentally immobilize the body's remaining degrees of freedom (whole body engagement), or a person's concern about postural stability. In Experiment 1, 10 participants either stood upright or lay supine to eliminate additional degrees of freedom and balance concerns. Their task was to estimate when they could reach an object by merely extending their arm. For objects at one's side, estimated reachability bias was reduced when lying supine. This result favors the whole body engagement hypothesis. For reaching above one's head, however, an increased estimation bias suggested that postural stability also affects estimates. In Experiment 2, estimates of reachability for 12 participants were not selectively reduced while standing on one leg instead of both legs. This result could be interpreted to be inconsistent with the postural stability hypothesis. The lack of an interaction between supporting leg and object location, however, argued against the whole body engagement hypothesis. Finally, approaching objects always appeared reachable at larger distances than objects departing from the observer. These results cast doubt on single-factor accounts of reachability estimates. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PsycINFO classification: 2221; 2330.