Circumstances in Which Action Becomes Influential in an Action–Irrelevant Categorisation Tas

455 Pages·2017·26.59 MB·English

Rifles, Swords and Water Pistols: Circumstances in Which Action Becomes
Influential in an Action–Irrelevant Categorisation Task

Nicholas J. Shipp

Submitted to the University of Hertfordshire in partial fulfilment of the
requirements of the degree of PhD

Submitted February 2017
Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I thank every participant who took part in the research.
Without your help, your time, and your patience, this thesis would be nothing more
than unsupported ideas.
To all my friends and family, I would like to thank you for your support and
continued encouragement. Special thanks go to Amelia, Carine, Dan and Neil. You
have all been a huge source of help over the years, encouraging me in both academic
and non-academic matters. A very special thank you goes to Martin. You have
supported (and put up with) me over the last 6 years and always pushed me to work
harder. Thank you for helping de-stress me at times when I very much needed it. To
mum, dad, Vicki and Alex, I thank you all for your continued, and unwavering,
support and encouragement.
My deepest gratitude goes to my supervisory team. To Fred, thank you very
much for all the support you have given me over the years. Thank you for pushing me
to stretch my academic skills, particularly with publishing the research. Your
knowledge and teaching have made me a better researcher, and without you this thesis
would certainly be lacking in commas.
To Sue, you have now taught me through a BSc, MSc and a PhD, and I could
not wish for a better supervisor. You have always challenged me to think in new ways
and my skills as an academic are a testament to your tutelage over the years. You
have supported me through the journey in many respects, and I look forward to our
continued working together. Thank you for everything.

1
Table of Contents

Published Work ........................................................................................................ 3
Abstract ..................................................................................................................... 5
Chapter 1 .................................................................................................................. 6
Chapter 2 ................................................................................................................ 54
Experiment 1 ...................................................................................................... 56
Experiment 2 ...................................................................................................... 69
Experiment 3 ...................................................................................................... 80
Experiment 4 ...................................................................................................... 85
Chapter 3 .............................................................................................................. 100
Experiment 5 .................................................................................................... 102
Chapter 4 .............................................................................................................. 114
Experiment 6 .................................................................................................... 116
Experiment 7 .................................................................................................... 129
Chapter 5 .............................................................................................................. 140
Experiment 8 .................................................................................................... 155
Chapter 6 .............................................................................................................. 184
Experiment 9 .................................................................................................... 186
Chapter 7 .............................................................................................................. 205
References ............................................................................................................. 234
Appendices ............................................................................................................ 246

2
Published Work

Some of the material presented in this thesis has been published previously.
Experiments 2, 4 and 6 have been presented at 2014 and 2016 annual conference of
the Cognitive Science Society, and published in the conference proceedings.
Experiments 1, 2 and 5 have also been presented at other conferences and are listed
below.

Publications
Shipp, N. J., Vallée-Tourangeau, F., & Anthony, S. H. (2014). The context-dependent
nature of action knowledge. In P. Bello, M. Guarani, M. McShane, & B.
Scassellati (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive
Science Society (pp. 2925-2930). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science
Society. [Experiment 2, Chapter 2]
Shipp, N. J., Vallée-Tourangeau, F., & Anthony, S. H. (2016a). Priming categorical
choices through physical object interaction. In A. Papafragou, D. Grodner, D.
Mirman, & J.C. Trueswell, (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference
of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2153-2158). Austin, TX: Cognitive
Science Society. [Experiment 6, Chapter 4]
Shipp, N. J., Vallée-Tourangeau, F., & Anthony, S. H. (2016b). Shakers and maracas:
Action-based categorisation choices in triads are influenced by task
instructions. In A. Papafragou, D. Grodner, D. Mirman, & J.C. Trueswell,
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science
Society (pp. 2153-2158). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. [Experiment
4, Chapter 2]

Conference Presentations
Shakers and maracas: Action-based categorisation choices in triads are influenced by
task instructions. Presentation given at the 38th Annual Conference of the
Cognitive Science Society, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 10th – 13th August 2016.
[Experiment 4, Chapter 2]
Priming categorical choices through physical object interaction. Poster presented at
the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Philadelphia,
PA, USA, 10th – 13th August 2016. [Experiment 6, Chapter 4]
3
Influencing categorical choices through physical object interaction. Presentation
given at the 3rd International Conference on Interactivity, Language and
Cognition, Kingston-upon-Thames, London, England, 29th June – 1st July
2016. [Experiment 6, Chapter 4]
Looking at hands, objects or words? Tracking eye movements on an action based
categorisation task. Poster presented at the 31st BPS Cognitive Psychology
Section Conference, Nottingham, England, 3rd – 5th September 2014.
[Experiment 5, Chapter 3]
The context-dependent nature of action knowledge. Poster presented at the 36th
Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Quebec City, Canada,
23rd – 26th July 2014. [Experiment 2, Chapter 2]
Rifles, swords and water pistols: The role of action over taxonomic information in
conceptual knowledge. Presentation given at the 1st International Conference
on Interactivity, Language and Cognition, Odense, Denmark, 12th-14th
September 2012. [Experiments 1 and 2, Chapter 2]
4
Abstract

An assumption in Cognitive Psychology, which has been challenged in recent
years, is that the systems responsible for action and perception work independently of
one another. These systems work together during conceptual tasks and research has
demonstrated that action knowledge can influence performance even when the task is
‘action-irrelevant’ (Borghi, 2004; Borghi, Flumini, Natraj & Wheaton, 2012; Creem
& Proffitt, 2001; Tucker & Ellis, 1998, 2001). However, participants in such tasks are
often only asked to make simple category judgements, such as natural versus man
made. The research reported in this thesis has shown that, under certain conditions,
participants use action knowledge to make ‘complex’ category choices in an action-
irrelevant task. The experimental work has predominantly used the forced-choice triad
task to assess the circumstances under which participants categorise objects based on
shared actions. The triads were designed with a target object and two choice objects
matching on either shared actions (rifle + water pistol), shared taxonomic relations
(rifle + sword), or both (orange + banana). The context in which the objects were
presented was also manipulated so that the objects were either presented on a white
background (context-lean) or being used by an agent (context-rich). Participants were
most likely to select the choice object that shared both a taxonomic and an action
demonstrating that action has an ‘additive’ effect in categorical decisions. Presenting
the objects being used by an agent in a functional scenario increased the saliency of
the shared actions between the stimuli, and participants were more likely to select the
action choice. The subsequent experimental work reported in the thesis sought to
eliminate potential confounding variables including perceptual features, object
typicality and task instructions. What the experimental work presented here has
demonstrated is that action can influence decisions on more complex categories, and
judgments of similarity. The research has identified three main circumstances under
which knowledge of action becomes influential in the triad task designed for the
purpose of this research as follows: (i) when it is presented in conjunction with
taxonomic information, (ii) when it is presented with a context, and (iii) when
participants are first asked to physically interact with the objects.
5
Chapter 1
The Role of Action in Cognition

6
Cognitive Psychology has traditionally taken the view that the systems
responsible for perception and action act independently of one another. Recent
research has shown that the two systems are not independent, but work together such
that perception can have a direct influence on action responses (Creem & Proffitt,
2001; Ellis & Tucker, 2000; Tucker & Ellis, 1998, 2001, 2004). This has been shown
to be the case in experiments where participants are asked to perform physical
actions, as well as ‘action-irrelevant’ tasks in which action is not required for task
performance (Borghi, 2004; Bub & Masson, 2006, 2010, 2012; Campanella &
Shallice, 2011; Chao & Martin, 2000; Helbig, Graf & Keifer, 2006; Myung,
Blumstein & Sedivy, 2006). While action has been shown to influence performance in
a variety of cognitive tasks, the reported thesis is primarily aimed at how action
influences categorical decisions. In categorising objects together, various sources can
be drawn upon such as perceptual, taxonomic and thematic information. It has been
further argued that concepts are developed around potential actions and that such
information should represent an integral aspect of conceptual knowledge (Barsalou,
2008, 2016b; Franks & Braisby, 1997). It has been further argued that concepts are
embedded within the modalities in which they were originally experienced, and as
such are ‘grounded’ (Barsalou, 1999, 2003, 2008, 2016a, 2016b; Martin, 2016). In the
case of artefacts, this directly refers to concepts represented within the motor cortex.
While research has shown that action is influential in task performance, action has not
previously been considered as a source of information used in categorical decisions.
The thesis reports experimental evidence using the forced-choice triad task
demonstrating (some of) the circumstances under which action is used as a source of
commonality in categorising objects together.
Chapter 1 outlines the previous literature that has informed the experimental
work of the thesis, including experimental evidence demonstrating how action
information influences performance across a variety of cognitive tasks. In addition,
Chapter 1 outlines the theoretical framework in which the experimental results here
are discussed (Simulation theory, Barsalou, 1999, 2003, 2008, 2016b). Chapter 2
reports the initial experimental work using the triad task to demonstrate the
circumstances under which action is used to categorise objects. In particular, the
experimental work tested the relative influence of action and taxonomic information;
the effect of context and how the results are influenced by task instructions and object
typicality. The experimental work reported in Chapter 2 showed how action is
7
influential, and used, within an action-irrelevant task to group objects together. In
Chapter 3, eye-tracking software was used to determine which elements within the
context-rich images used were most influential in selecting the action related choice
item. In Chapter 4, the triad task was amended in order to test if action influence
could be increased through using physical actions. Chapter 5 describes the analysis of
the stimuli used in the experimental work. This is because the experimental work
through the previous chapters shows that the influence of action is not consistent, and
some of the triads are more likely to lead to action-based responses than others. In
order to assess this, protocol analysis was used to investigate the strategies employed
by participants in the triad task. Chapter 6 outlines the close theoretical relationship
between categorisation and similarity (Rips, 1989), and how research has shown that
there is a dissociation between the two processes (Braisby, 2004; Rips, 1989; Smith &
Sloman, 1994). The aim of the work reported in Chapter 6 was to see if action showed
the same pattern of influence on the evaluation of similarity using the same stimuli
developed in Chapter 2, re-designed in the form of a similarity judgement task.
Chapter 7 draws the thesis to a close and discusses the results from this programme of
work within the framework of simulation theory (Barsalou, 1999, 2003, 2008).

8
1. Background Review Of Literature That Stimulated And Informed The New
Work Reported In This Thesis.

Chapter 1 outlines the experimental and theoretical research that has informed
the work reported in this thesis. This includes research on categorisation, embodied
cognition, context, and the role of action in experimental cognitive psychology. The
literature discussed here has been broken down into the following sections:
(i). The Relationship Between Action and Perception
(ii). Physical Action Responses
(iii). Action-Irrelevant Tasks
(iv). Is Action Knowledge Automatic or Task Dependent?
(v). Neurological Findings
(vi). Volumetric and Functional Actions
(vii). Actions in Object Recognition
(viii). When is Action not Activated?
(ix). The Role of Context
(x). Actions in Context
(xi). Actions as Features?
(xii). Simulation Theory
(xiii). Evidence for Simulation Theory
(xiv). Extensions to Simulation Theory
(xv). The Current research
(xvi). The Task

1.1 The Relationship Between Action and Perception
Traditional information-processing models (Massaro & Cowan, 1993; Simon,
1979) suggest that a visual stimulus is transduced into a series of representations that
can serve a number of psychological functions forming the basis of physical actions.
This assumes that stimuli are interpreted by the visual system before being analysed
separately by the motor cortex in order to execute an action. Such a view assumes that
concept knowledge is abstracted from real-world encounters and stored as amodal
symbols, whereby the mechanisms involved in concept representations differ to those
used in perception and action (Hampton, 1995; Machery, 2016; Mahon & Caramazza,
2008; Rosch, 1975; Rosch & Mervis, 1975). However, this does not allow for the
9