Subjects: Psychology >> Developmental Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： The McGurk effect is a typical audiovisual integration phenomenon, influenced by characteristics of physical stimuli, attentional allocation, the extent that individuals rely on visual or auditory information in processing, the ability of audiovisual integration, and language/culture differences. Key visual information that leads to the McGurk effect is mainly extracted from the mouth area of the talker. The McGurk effect implicates both audiovisual integration (which occurs in the early processing stage and is related to the activation of superior temporal cortex) and the conflict of the incongruent audiovisual stimuli (which occurs in the late processing stage and is related to the activation of inferior frontal cortex). Future studies should further investigate the influence of social factors on the McGurk effect, pay attention to the relationship between unimodal information processing and audiovisual integration in the McGurk effect, and explore the neural mechanisms of McGurk effect with computational modeling.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： Presupposition refers to the non-explicit assumption or belief held by both the listener and the speaker (the “common ground”). When encountering a presupposition message, the listener is required to infer what the speaker implies from the specific linguistic marker (or presupposition trigger) and its constrained object (or computational point). For instance, the sentence “Zhang Ming published a papercomputational point againtrigger” generates a presupposition “Zhang Ming published a paper before”. The listener relies on the trigger to access the common ground of both sides of the communication, and infers the presupposed content based on the computational point; subsequently, the listener relates the generated presupposition to the common ground and then updates their mental representation. These processes may be modulated by the word order between the presupposition trigger and the computational point, which would not change the critical role of the presupposition trigger in generating presupposition, but may affect the difficulty of presupposition processing. Presupposition comprehension was often considered as involving the processing of pragmatic felicitousness. According to whether the presupposition generated by the listener is consistent with the common ground, the processing of felicitousness can be classified as “presupposition satisfaction” and “presupposition violation”. In the former, the presupposed content is consistent with common ground, while in the latter, the presupposed content is inconsistent with the common ground. According to whether the listener can rationalize the violated presupposition, the presupposition violation is further divided into “presupposition failure” and “presupposition accommodation”. Presupposition failure refers to the understanding person’s lack of ability to rationalize the inconsistent presupposed content, let alone integrate it into an existing mental representation. Presupposition accommodation means that the inconsistent presupposed content can be rationalized. The mental model can be updated and reconstructed. This categorization lays the foundation for investigating the cognitive processes of presupposition comprehension. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the perceived common ground has an immediate impact on presupposition trigger and computational points. Accordingly, we propose a two-stage processing hypothesis regarding the contextual effect on presupposition comprehension. Specifically, in the first stage, the listener integrates the common ground with the presupposed meaning at the presupposition trigger; in the second stage, the concrete presupposed content is integrated with the common ground in the preceding context. Different processing stages may involve distinct cognitive processes. Furthermore, we reviewed several factors affecting the processing of presupposition at different cognitive stages, such as the linguistic types of the trigger, the semantic relatedness between the common ground and the presupposition, the forms of common ground presented, and the level of involvement in the experiment. Firstly, these triggers introducing similar and specific event structures may lead to similar cognitive efforts. Secondly, when integrating the common ground with the presupposed content, the listener does not simply judge whether the common ground and presupposed content are matched but carries out a more fine-grained processing according to the degree of matching between them. Therefore, the difficulty of integrating the two components may be affected by the degree of matching. Thirdly, the common ground of interlocutors can be established by linguistic co-presence (linguistic materials presented to the listener), visual co-presence (visual scene presented to the listener), or general world knowledge/community membership (common sense formed by the community). These manipulations differed in the modality of providing common contextual information and in the memory (such as short-term memory and the long-term memory) for retrieving these common grounds. Therefore, these specific cognitive processes are different when the listener integrates different types of common grounds and presupposed content. Finally, different experimental paradigms, such as those facilitating reading and those demanding interpersonal interaction, which demand different levels of motivation and engagement, may affect the extent of presupposition processing. Future studies can explore the cognitive basis of presupposition processing from the following three perspectives: (1) using computational modeling to quantify the processes (such as perspective-taking) of the listener’s understanding of presupposition during language communication; (2) using brain imaging to reveal the neural basis of presupposition processing; (3) to validate and, when necessary, to modify the neurocognitive models of presupposition processing with data from special populations.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： The aesthetic objects arouse aesthetic pleasure that is specific and intense. The Pleasure-Interest Aesthetic model (PIA) suggests that aesthetic processing is a dual-process including the automatic process for sensory pleasure and the control process for aesthetic interest pleasure. Here we review recent work on the neural substrates of aesthetic pleasure. A large body of studies demonstrates that the orbitofrontal cortex is automatically activated by the objects of aesthetic appreciation. The orbitofrontal cortex which is responsible for automatic emotion regulation and reward processing of pleasure is generally activated in aesthetic activities and it is the neural basis of the automatic processing for sensory pleasure. Different modes of functional connectivity with the striatum support different aspects of aesthetic processing: the release of endogenous dopamine in the caudate nucleus is concentrated in the early aesthetic stage, and then gradually decreases during the in-depth process of aesthetic experience, while the release of endogenous dopamine in the nucleus accumbens gradually increases during the in-depth phase. This is evidence for the PIA model. However, additional brain circuitry is engaged such that the default mode network (DMN) is activated and the lateral prefrontal cortex is deactivated when the aesthetic flow experience occurs, indicating that beyond the dual-process highlighted by the PIA model there is a higher level of aesthetic flow pleasure. The automatic processing for sensory pleasure and the control processing for aesthetic interest pleasure are different from the aesthetic flow pleasure. Aesthetic flow pleasure is not the satisfaction of the needs of the senses, but the high-level pleasure which is liberated from the spirit; it is the experience of the soul gaining strength and courage and it is related to a clear self-consciousness. Therefore, aesthetic flow pleasure is independent of the automatic processing for sensory pleasure and the control processing for aesthetic interest pleasure. We point out that the PIA model needs to be expanded to include this dimension of aesthetic processing. The extended model includes three levels of aesthetic pleasure including sensory pleasure, aesthetic interest pleasure, and aesthetic flow pleasure. They are generated respectively in three stages of aesthetic appreciation: automatic processing, controlled processing, and integration and sublimation. Further studies should be conducted on how the aesthetic experience could impact upon creativity and to what extent different aesthetic experiences have the same or differential neural bases for giving rise to aesthetic pleasure.
Subjects: Psychology >> Other Disciplines of Psychology submitted time 2021-04-30
Abstract： The aesthetic objects arouse aesthetic pleasure that is specific and intense. The Pleasure-Interest of Aesthetic model (PIA) suggests that aesthetic processing is a dual-process including the automatic processing for sensory pleasure and the control processing for aesthetic interest pleasure. Here we review recent work on the neural substrates of aesthetic pleasure. A large body of studies demonstrate that the orbitofrontal cortex is automatically activated by aesthetic objects and different modes of connection with the striatum support different aspects of aesthetic processing. These results consistent with the PIA model. However, the default mode network (DMN) is activated and the lateral prefrontal cortex is deactivated when the aesthetic flow experience occurs, indicating that beyond the dual-process highlighted by the PIA model there is a higher level of aesthetic flow pleasure. We point out that the PIA model needs to be expanded to include this dimension of aesthetic processing and further studies should be conducted on how the aesthetic experience could impact upon creativity and to what extent different aesthetic experiences have the same or differential neural bases for giving rise to aesthetic pleasure.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Hits
Hits
Downloads
Comment