Similar social presence effects when reaching for real and digital objects.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
13
11
2019
accepted:
14
04
2020
entrez:
2
5
2020
pubmed:
2
5
2020
medline:
29
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Though digital images and real objects are represented differently at a neural level and can evoke different behaviours, little work has directly compared the magnitude of social effects on real and digitally represented stimuli. Object-directed reaches are modified in the near space of others, while image-directed reaches are not, but the exact role of the presence versus location of the other person is unknown (Dosso and Kingstone, 2018). The present work probed the unique contribution of social presence (a passive observer) in shaping object- and image-directed reaching behaviour. In a shape-matching game, movements were performed more slowly and less efficiently when participants were observed by the experimenter, regardless of whether participants handled real objects or digital images. Our finding that social presence affects real- and image-directed reaches similarly supports the continued use of computer-generated objects to approximate human behaviour towards real objects when social effects on object-directed actions are studied.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32357158
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232409
pii: PONE-D-19-31646
pmc: PMC7194397
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0232409Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Cognition. 2016 Jan;146:223-8
pubmed: 26457838
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2013 Feb;39(1):62-74
pubmed: 22612058
Psychol Res. 2019 Sep 6;:
pubmed: 31493049
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Oct 20;8:837
pubmed: 25368568
Curr Biol. 2010 Aug 10;20(15):1345-9
pubmed: 20619649
Front Psychol. 2013 Jul 22;4:443
pubmed: 23885243
Brain Cogn. 1994 Jan;24(1):1-23
pubmed: 8123259
Sci Rep. 2011;1:130
pubmed: 22355647
Br J Psychol. 2015 May;106(2):209-16
pubmed: 25040108
Curr Biol. 2013 Mar 4;23(5):406-11
pubmed: 23394831
Cognition. 2003 Jul;88(3):B11-21
pubmed: 12804818
Neuroimage. 2001 Sep;14(3):749-58
pubmed: 11506547
Front Psychol. 2018 Jun 04;9:874
pubmed: 29915553
Conscious Cogn. 2008 Sep;17(3):557-64
pubmed: 17446089
PLoS One. 2011 Jan 24;6(1):e15855
pubmed: 21283642
Psychol Bull. 1983 Sep;94(2):265-92
pubmed: 6356198
Psychol Bull. 2003 Nov;129(6):873-86
pubmed: 14599286
PLoS One. 2010 May 24;5(5):e10773
pubmed: 20532245
Neuropsychologia. 2015 Apr;70:462-7
pubmed: 25447057
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007 Aug;93(2):194-211
pubmed: 17645395
J Neurosci Methods. 2007 May 15;162(1-2):8-13
pubmed: 17254636
Psychol Sci. 2018 Feb;29(2):206-218
pubmed: 29215960
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Apr 5;108(14):5548-53
pubmed: 21436052
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999 Nov;77(5):1011-25
pubmed: 10573878
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2018 Jan;80(1):54-68
pubmed: 28864874
Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113
pubmed: 5146491
Cogn Neurosci. 2016 Jan-Oct;7(1-4):45-54
pubmed: 25950081
Iperception. 2017 Feb 01;8(1):2041669517692814
pubmed: 28321288
J Neurophysiol. 1997 May;77(5):2268-92
pubmed: 9163357
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 23;13(10):e0205830
pubmed: 30352061
Front Psychol. 2016 Jun 13;7:827
pubmed: 27378962
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2001 Mar 1;18(2):175-91
pubmed: 20945210
Neuropsychologia. 2015 Jan;66:126-33
pubmed: 25448862