Abstract
We present three experiments investigating how spatial context influences the attribution of animacy to a moving target. Each of our displays contained a moving object (the target) that might, depending on the way it moved, convey the impression that it was alive (animate). We investigated the mechanisms underlying this attribution by manipulating the nature of the spatial context surrounding the target. In Experiment 1, the context consisted of a simple static dot (the foil), whose position relative to the target’s trajectory was manipulated. With some foil positions—for example, when the foil was lying along the path traveled by the target—animacy judgments were elevated relative to control foil locations, apparently because this context supported the impression that the target was “reacting to” or was in some other way mentally influenced by the foil. In Experiment 2, contexts consisted of a static oriented rectangle (the “paddle”). On some trials, the target collided with the paddle in a way that seemed to physically account for the target’s motion pattern (in the sense of having imparted momentum to it); this condition reduced animacy ratings. Experiment 3 was similar, except that the paddles themselves were in motion; again, animacy attribution was suppressed when the target’s motion seemed to have been caused by a collision with the paddle. Hence, animacy attributions can be either elevated or suppressed by the nature of the environment and the target’s interaction with it. Animacy attribution tracks intentionality attribution; contrary to some earlier proposals, we conclude that attributing animacy involves, and may even require, attributing to the target some minimal mental capacity sufficient to endow the target with intentionality.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bassili, J. N. (1976). Temporal and spatial contingencies in the perception of social events.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,33, 680–685.
Bingham, G. P., Rosenblum, L. D., &Schmidt, R. C. (1995). Dynamics and the orientation of kinematic forms in visual event recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 1473–1493.
Bonatti, L., Frot, E., Zangl, R., &Mehler, J. (2002). The human first hypothesis: Identification of conspecifics and individuation of objects in the young infant.Cognitive Psychology,44, 388–426.
Dasser, V., Ulbaek, I., &Premack, D. (1989). The perception of intention.Science,243, 365–367.
Dittrich, W. H., &Lea, S. E. G. (1994). Visual perception of intentional motion.Perception,23, 253–268.
Gelman, R., Durgin, F., &Kaufman, L. (1995). Distinguishing between animates and inanimates: Not by motion alone. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.),Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 150–184). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
Gelman, S. A., &Gottfried, G. M. (1996). Children’s causal explanations of animate and inanimate motion.Child Development,67, 1970–1987.
Gergely, G., Nádasdy, Z., Csibra, G., &Bíró, S. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age.Cognition,56, 165–193.
Heider, F., &Simmel, M. (1944). An experimental study of apparent behavior.American Journal of Psychology,57, 243–259.
Johnson, S. C. (2000). The recognition of mentalistic agents in infancy.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4, 22–28.
Johnson, S. C., Booth, A., &O’Hearn, K. (2001). Inferring the goals of a nonhuman agent.Cognitive Development,16, 637–656.
Kaiser, M. K., &Proffitt, D. R. (1987). Observers’ sensitivity to dynamic anomalies in collisions.Perception & Psychophysics,42, 275–280.
Legerstee, M. (1994). The role of familiarity and sound in the development of person and object permanence.British Journal of Developmental Psychology,12, 455–468.
Leslie, A. M. (1984). Infant perception of a manual pick-up event.British Journal of Developmental Psychology,2, 19–32.
Leslie, A. M. (1995). A theory of agency. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.),Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 121–149). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
Mandler, J. M. (1992). How to build a baby II: Conceptual primitives.Psychological Review,99, 587–604.
Michotte, A. (1950). Phenomenal permanence: Facts and theories.Acta Psychologica,7, 298–322.
Michotte, A. (1963).The perception of causality. New York: Basic Books.
Porter, T., &Susman, G. (2000). Creating lifelike characters in Pixar movies.Communications of the ACM,43, 25–29.
Premack, D. (1990). The infant’s theory of self-propelled objects.Cognition,36, 1–16.
Premack, D., &Premack, A. J. (1995). Intention as psychological cause. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.),Causal cognition: A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 44–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
Schlottmann, A., &Surian, L. (1999). Do 9-month-olds perceive causation-at-a-distance?Perception,28, 1105–1113.
Stewart, J. A. (1982).Perception of animacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Tremoulet, P. D., &Feldman, J. (2000). Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object.Perception,29, 943–951.
Van de Walle, G. A., Rubenstein, J. S., &Spelke, E. S. (1998). Infant sensitivity to shadow motions.Cognitive Development,13, 387–419.
Woodward, A. L. (1995, April). Infants’ reasoning about the goals of a human actor. Poster session presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis, IN.
Woodward, A. L., Phillips, A. T., &Spelke, E. S. (1993). Infants’ expectations about the motion of animate versus inanimate objects. InProceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1087–1091). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tremoulet, P.D., Feldman, J. The influence of spatial context and the role of intentionality in the interpretation of animacy from motion. Perception & Psychophysics 68, 1047–1058 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193364
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193364