Faster but Less Careful Prehension in Presence of High, Rather than Low, Social Status Attendees

Fantoni, Carlo; Rigutti, Sara; Piccoli, Valentina; Sommacal, Elena; Carnaghi, Andréa

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158095

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 139 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…AEs would involve a more complex encoding process than PEs to be detected, as their encoding depends on previous knowledge about the structure of the object, while PEs being based on mere violation of perceptual organization principles as good continuation and colour similarity does not requires the access to knowledge ( Norman, 1988 ; MacKay & James, 2009 ). Furthermore, the overall facilitation of PEs over AEs is consistent with a strand of evidence suggesting that in tasks involving objects’ recognition, artifact recognition is slowed down given that they automatically activate multiple levels of information, from manipulative to functional ( Gerlach, 2009 ; Anelli, Nicoletti & Borghi, 2010 ; Costantini et al, 2011 ; Fantoni et al, 2016 ). The degree of social desirability possibly induced by the setting in which the task was performed, as the active vs. multi-passive advantage occurred irrespectively from the type of error in the laboratory (Experiment 2) but not in the field (Experiment 1) setting.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Don’t worry, be active: how to facilitate the detection of errors in immersive virtual environments

Rigutti

Stragà

Jez

et al. 2018

PeerJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current research aims to study the link between the type of vision experienced in a collaborative immersive virtual environment (active vs. multiple passive), the type of error one looks for during a cooperative multi-user exploration of a design project (affordance vs. perceptual violations), and the type of setting in which multi-user perform (field in Experiment 1 vs. laboratory in Experiment 2). The relevance of this link is backed by the lack of conclusive evidence on an active vs. passive vision advantage in cooperative search tasks within software based on immersive virtual reality (IVR). Using a yoking paradigm based on the mixed usage of simultaneous active and multiple passive viewings, we found that the likelihood of error detection in a complex 3D environment was characterized by an active vs. multi-passive viewing advantage depending on: (1) the degree of knowledge dependence of the type of error the passive/active observers were looking for (low for perceptual violations, vs. high for affordance violations), as the advantage tended to manifest itself irrespectively from the setting for affordance, but not for perceptual violations; and (2) the degree of social desirability possibly induced by the setting in which the task was performed, as the advantage occurred irrespectively from the type of error in the laboratory (Experiment 2) but not in the field (Experiment 1) setting. Results are relevant to future development of cooperative software based on IVR used for supporting the design review. A multi-user design review experience in which designers, engineers and end-users all cooperate actively within the IVR wearing their own head mounted display, seems more suitable for the detection of relevant errors than standard systems characterized by a mixed usage of active and passive viewing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Don’t worry, be active: how to facilitate the detection of errors in immersive virtual environments

Rigutti

Stragà

Jez

et al. 2018

PeerJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the overall facilitation of PEs over AEs is consistent with a strand of evidence suggesting that in tasks involving objects' recognition, artifact recognition is slowed down given that they automatically activate multiple levels of information, from manipulative to functional (Gerlach, 2009;Anelli, Nicoletti & Borghi, 2010;Costantini et al, 2011;Fantoni et al, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Peer Review #2 of "Don’t worry, be active: how to facilitate the detection of errors in immersive virtual environments (v0.1)"

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current research aims to study the link between the type of vision experienced in a collaborative immersive virtual environment (active vs. multiple passive), the type of error one looks for during a cooperative multiuser exploration of a design project (affordance vs. perceptual violations), and the type of setting in which multiuser perform (field in Experiment 1 vs. laboratory in Experiment 2). The relevance of this link is backed by the lack of conclusive evidence on an active vs. passive vision advantage in cooperative search tasks within software based on immersive virtual reality. Using a yoking paradigm based on the mixed usage of simultaneous active and multiple passive viewings, we found that the likelihood of error detection in a complex 3D environment was characterized by an active vs. multi-passive viewing advantage depending on: (1) The degree of knowledge dependence of the type of error the passive/active observers were looking for (low for perceptual violations, vs. high for affordance violations), as the advantage tended to manifest itself irrespectively from the setting for affordance, but not for perceptual violations; (2) The degree of social desirability possibly induced by the setting in which the task was performed, as the advantage occurred irrespectively from the type of error in the laboratory (Experiment 2) but not in the field (Experiment 1) setting. Results are relevant to future development of cooperative software based on immersive virtual reality used for supporting the design review. A multiuser design review experience in which designers, engineers and end-users all cooperate actively within the immersive virtual reality wearing their own head mounted display, seems more suitable for the detection of relevant errors than standard systems characterized by a mixed usage of active and passive viewing.

show abstract

“…We analysed accessibility scores using a linear mixed‐effects ( lme ) model with participants as random effect, and LoC, prime (woman vs. man), and target (human vs. animal) as fixed effects (Bates, ; Bates & Mechler, ; Fantoni, Rigutti, Piccoli, Sommacal, & Carnaghi, ). The lme was fitted to the data using restricted maximum‐likelihood estimation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic female dehumanization across the menstrual cycle

Piccoli

Fantoni

Foroni

et al. 2016

British J Social Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we investigate whether hormonal shifts during the menstrual cycle contribute to the dehumanization of other women and men. Female participants with different levels of likelihood of conception (LoC) completed a semantic priming paradigm in a lexical decision task. When the word 'woman' was the prime, animal words were more accessible in high versus low LoC whereas human words were more inhibited in the high versus low LoC. When the word 'man' was used as the prime, no difference was found in terms of accessibility between high and low LoC for either animal or human words. These results show that the female dehumanization is automatically elicited by menstrual cycle-related processes and likely associated with an enhanced activation of mate-attraction goals.

show abstract

Faster but Less Careful Prehension in Presence of High, Rather than Low, Social Status Attendees

Cited by 8 publications

References 139 publications

Don’t worry, be active: how to facilitate the detection of errors in immersive virtual environments

Don’t worry, be active: how to facilitate the detection of errors in immersive virtual environments

Peer Review #2 of "Don’t worry, be active: how to facilitate the detection of errors in immersive virtual environments (v0.1)"

Automatic female dehumanization across the menstrual cycle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About