4.7 Article

Effects of scaling direction on adults' spatial scaling in different perceptual domains

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-41533-3

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study examined adults' strategies of spatial scaling from memory in visual, haptic, and visuo-haptic conditions. The findings suggest that adults consistently employ mental transformation strategies for spatial scaling, regardless of perceptual modality and scaling direction.
The current study investigated adults' strategies of spatial scaling from memory in three perceptual conditions (visual, haptic, and visuo-haptic) when scaling up and down. Following previous research, we predicted the usage of mental transformation strategies. In all conditions, participants (N = 90, aged 19-28 years) were presented with tactile, colored graphics which allowed to visually and haptically explore spatial information. Participants were first asked to encode a map including a target. Then, they were instructed to place a response object at the same place on an empty, constant-sized referent space. Maps had five different sizes resulting in five scaling factors (3:1, 2:1, 1:1, 1:2, 1:3). This manipulation also allowed assessing potentially symmetric effects of scaling direction on adults' responses. Response times and absolute errors served as dependent variables. In line with our hypotheses, the changes in these dependent variables were best explained by a quadratic function which suggests the usage of mental transformation strategies for spatial scaling. There were no differences between perceptual conditions concerning the influence of scaling factor on dependent variables. Results revealed symmetric effects of scaling direction on participants' accuracy whereas there were small differences for response times. Our findings highlight the usage of mental transformation strategies in adults' spatial scaling, irrespective of perceptual modality and scaling direction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据