Understanding the surface orientation of liquids

McAfee, Ellen A.; Proffítt, Dennis R.

doi:10.1016/0010-0285(91)90017-i

Cited by 59 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Leyton (1989), for example, showed that a few well-chosen geometric principles could explain how people infer the deforming effects of pressure to a nonrigid object. As a second example, McAfee and Proffitt (1991) argue that it is not a misunderstanding of gravity that prevents people from realizing that a water surface remains horizontal in a tilted glass. Instead, it is people's use of a glass-based, rather than a horizon-based, frame of reference that explains why they make errors on the Piagetian water level task.…”

Section: The Kinematic Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One correct kinematic solution, shown in panel c, ensures that side A and the horizon maintain a constant angle during rotation. Other solutions, varying in levels of absolute accuracy, can be found by aligning different spatial features and angles within the system (Hecht & Proffitt, 1995;McAfee & Proffitt, 1991).…”

Section: Applying Km and Dm To The Water Pouring Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Broadly expressed, KM proposes that an image only includes information about spatial relations and their maintenance or achievement through movement. Therefore, beliefs and perceptions should modify imagery only when they change the spatial information, spatial expectations, or the coordinate system incorporated into the content of an image (e.g., McAfee & Proffitt, 1991;Sholl & Liben, 1995;Tversky & Schiano, 1989). DM proposes that an image also includes information about physical constraints on rate.…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Physical Imagery: Kinematic versus Dynamic Models

Schwartz

1999

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Physical imagery occurs when people imagine one object causing a change to a second object. To make inferences through physical imagery, people must represent information that coordinates the interactions among the imagined objects. The current research contrasts two proposals for how this coordinating information is realized in physical imagery. In the traditional kinematic formulation, imagery transformations are coordinated by geometric information in analog spatial representations. In the dynamic formulation, transformations may also be regulated by analog representations of force and resistance. Four experiments support the dynamic formulation. They show, for example, that without making changes to the spatial properties of a problem, dynamic perceptual information (e.g., torque) and beliefs about physical properties (e.g., viscosity) affect the inferences that people draw through imagery. The studies suggest that physical imagery is not so much an analog of visual perception as it is an analog of physical action. A simple model that represents force as a rate helps explain why inferences can emerge through imagined actions even though people may not know the answer explicitly. It also explains how and when perception, beliefs, and learning can influence physical imagery. © 1999 Academic PressPeople solve spatial problems about shape, position, change of perspective, and navigation. People also solve physical problems about forces, resistances, and how one object causes changes to another. To a large extent, research on physical problem solving has emphasized people's beliefs and qualitative theories about physical behaviors, and research on spatial problem solving has emphasized people's analog representations of visual perception. As a consequence, research relevant to analog representation has generally investigated spatial and visual issues but not physical and haptic issues. This seems like an omission. Imagine, for example, running wall-towall in a breezy room and then imagine running wall-to-wall in waist deep water. Even though many of the spatial relations are identical, the effect of imagined resistance is introspectively compelling. Less introspectively, Sashank Varma was an invaluable source of ideas. I thank John Rieser and Howard Sandler for many productive conversations. I also thank several anonymous reviewers for their patience and detailed commentary.

show abstract

Section: The Kinematic Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Applying Km and Dm To The Water Pouring Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Physical Imagery: Kinematic versus Dynamic Models

Schwartz

1999

Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Line drawings of the containers may be employed (Harris, Hanley, & Best, 1977). Real containers may also be presented on stereoscopic slides (Howard, 1978) or on a computer screen through digitalized photographs (McAfee & Proffitt, 1991). Under a production format , the subject generally uses a pencil to draw the water line in containers outlined on sheets of paper (Liben & Golbeck, 1986).…”

Section: Absence Of a Gender Difference In A Haptic Version Of The Wamentioning

confidence: 99%

Absence of a gender difference in a haptic version of the water-level task

Berthiaume

Robert

St-Onge

et al. 1993

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present experiment studied horizontality representation among men and women submitted to a haptic version of the water-level task. Without seeing the display, the subjects positioned a magnetic rod corresponding to the water line. It was found that the women performed as well as the men did, in contrast to the systematic male superiority under the standard visual version. Similarly, there was no gender effect when the subjects were instructed to set the rod horizontally in tilted containers. The absence of misleading visual information and the beneficial contribution of salient proprioceptive cues through haptic activity were suggested as possible determinants for the canceling of typical gender differences.

show abstract

“…For example, when asked to draw the water level on a picture of a tilted glass, about 40% of young adults draw lines that are not horizontal (McAfee & Proffitt, 1991). When asked to predict the path that a pendulum bob takes when the string is cut at various points, a large portion of participants make systematically incorrect judgments (Caramazza, McCloskey, & Green, 1981).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A psychometric approach to intuitive physics

Riener

Proffítt

Salthouse

2005

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature on intuitive physics shows that many people exhibit systematic errors when predicting the behavior of simple physical events. Most previous research has attributed these errors to factors specific to a certain class of tasks. In the present study, we investigated the possibility that intuitive physics performance may be related to general measures of cognitive ability. Two hundred four adults (ages, 20-91 years) were presented with five pairs of intuitive physics questions. It was found that performance on the intuitive physics items was moderately intercorrelated, suggesting that they were tapping into a unitary construct. Despite the correlation with factors that decline with advancing age, intuitive physics performance was not correlated with age (r ϭ .00). The findings are discussed in the context of research on intuitive physics, as well as research on cognitive aging.

show abstract

Understanding the surface orientation of liquids

Cited by 59 publications

References 33 publications

Physical Imagery: Kinematic versus Dynamic Models

Physical Imagery: Kinematic versus Dynamic Models

Absence of a gender difference in a haptic version of the water-level task

A psychometric approach to intuitive physics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About