Understanding what is visible in a mirror or through a window before and after updating the position of an object

Bertamini, Marco

doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00476

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is evidence that the viewpoint is not properly taken into account. Bertamini (2014) confirmed the difficulty of taking another viewpoint into account when reasoning about mirrors. The task was adapted so that the question was about which carriages of a train were visible.…”

Section: Viewpoint and Mirrorsmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…The room had a rectangular shape like that in Experiment 5 in Bertamini et al (2010), and the task was similar to the task used in Bertamini (2014). Participants were assigned to one of two groups.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is evidence that the viewpoint is not properly taken into account. Bertamini (2014) A study comparing the viewpoint of a person and a camera…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reasoning About Visibility in Mirrors: A Comparison Between a Human Observer and a Camera

Bertamini

Soranzo

2018

Perception

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human observers make errors when predicting what is visible in a mirror. This is true for perception with real mirrors as well as for reasoning about mirrors shown in diagrams. We created an illustration of a room, a top-down view, with a mirror on a wall and objects (nails) on the opposite wall. The task was to select which nails were visible in the mirror from a given position (viewpoint). To study the importance of the social nature of the viewpoint, we divided the sample ( N = 108) in two groups. One group ( n = 54) were tested with a scene in which there was the image of a person. The other group ( n = 54) were tested with the same scene but with a camera replacing the person. Participants were instructed to think about what would be captured by a camera on a tripod. This manipulation tests the effect of social perspective-taking in reasoning about mirrors. As predicted, performance on the task shows an overestimation of what can be seen in a mirror and a bias to underestimate the role of the different viewpoints, that is, a tendency to treat the mirror as if it captures information independently of viewpoint. In terms of the comparison between person and camera, there were more errors for the camera, suggesting an advantage for evaluating a human viewpoint as opposed to an artificial viewpoint. We suggest that social mechanisms may be involved in perspective-taking in reasoning rather than in automatic attention allocation.

show abstract

Section: Viewpoint and Mirrorsmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reasoning About Visibility in Mirrors: A Comparison Between a Human Observer and a Camera

Bertamini

Soranzo

2018

Perception

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The root of the difficulty is that people fail to understand the role of the viewpoint. This is clearly illustrated by the Room Observer and Mirror Perspective (ROMP) task (Bertamini et al, 2010;Bertamini, 2014;Bertamini and Soranzo, 2018). Here, individuals are asked to decide which objects along a wall of a room are visible to a person facing in the opposite direction, given that a mirror is present on the wall facing the person.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do Children Reason About Mirrors? A Comparison Between Adults, Typically Developed Children, and Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The information about what one can see and what other people can see from different viewpoints is important. There are circumstances in which adults and children make systematic errors when predicting what is visible from their own or others’ viewpoints. This happens for example when reasoning about mirrors. We explored differences among three developmental groups: young adults (N=60) typically developing children (N=30); and children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD, N=30). We used an illustration of a top-down view of a room with a mirror on a wall (Room Observer and Mirror Perspective test: ROMP). Participants selected (circled on paper) which objects behind the observer in the room were visible, reflected from the mirror and from a given position (viewpoint). For half of each group, the observer in the room was described as a teddy bear; for the other half, it was described as a child. Overall, there were many errors in all groups, which we separate in errors of ignoring the viewpoint (same response to all three locations) and inversion errors (choosing objects on the left instead of the right or vice versa). In addition to the overall task difficulty, the ASD group made relatively more mistakes of ignoring the viewpoint compared to the other groups and underestimated how many objects were visible in the teddy bear condition that is when the viewpoint was an inanimate object. We suggest that this is related to a delay in theory of mind (ToM) development.

show abstract

Impact of Selected Factors on the “Early Error” Phenomenon Evaluated in the Mirror Test

Machowska-Majchrzak¹,

Starostka-Tatar

Pyrkosz

et al. 2021

Control, Computer Engineering and Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding what is visible in a mirror or through a window before and after updating the position of an object

Cited by 3 publications

References 14 publications

Reasoning About Visibility in Mirrors: A Comparison Between a Human Observer and a Camera

Reasoning About Visibility in Mirrors: A Comparison Between a Human Observer and a Camera

How Do Children Reason About Mirrors? A Comparison Between Adults, Typically Developed Children, and Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder

Impact of Selected Factors on the “Early Error” Phenomenon Evaluated in the Mirror Test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About