Causation, causal perception, and conservation laws

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 64, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 956-968

  Twardy, Charles R ^a   Bingham, Geoffrey P ^b  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GRAVITY; HUMAN; MOVEMENT PERCEPTION; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; ROTATION;

DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); GRAVITATION; HUMANS; MOTION PERCEPTION; ROTATION;

EID: 0036690816     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03196799     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. AHN, W.-K., & BAILENSON, J. (1995). Causal attribution as a search for underlying mechanisms: An explanation of the conjunction fallacy and the discounting principle. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 82-123.
2. AHN, W.-K., KALISH, C. W., MEDIN, D. L., & GELMAN, S. A. (1995). The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution. Cognition, 54, 299-352.
3. BINGHAM, G. P. (1995). Dynamics and the problem of visual event recognition. In R. Port & T. van Gelder (Eds.), Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition (pp. 403-448). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
4. BINGHAM, G. P., SCHMIDT, R. C., & ROSENBLUM, L. D. (1995). Dynamics and the orientation of kinematic forms in visual event recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1473-1493.
5. CHENG, P. W. (1997) From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405.
6. CHENG, P. W., & HOLYOAK, K. J. (1995). Complex adaptive systems as intuitive statisticians: Causality, contingency, and prediction. In J.-A. Meyer & H. Roitblat (Eds.), Comparative approaches to cognition (pp. 271-302). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. DOWE, P. (2000). Physical causation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. GIBSON, J. J., & KAUSHALL, P. (1973). Reversible and irreversible events [Film]. (Psychological Cinema Register, Pennsylvania State College, University Park)
9. GILDEN, D. L., & PROFFITT, D. R. (1989). Understanding collision dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 15, 372-383.
10. GILDEN, D. L., & PROFFITT, D. R. (1994). Heuristic judgment of mass ratio in two-body collisions. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 708-720.
11. GLYMOUR, C. & CHENG, P. (1998). Causal mechanism and probability: A normative approach. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.), Rational models of cognition (pp. 296-313). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12. HECHT, H., KAISER, M. K., & BANKS, M. S. (1996). Gravitational acceleration as a cue for absolute size and distance? Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 1066-1075.
13. HECHT, H., & PROFFITT, D. (2000). What cues do billiard experts use? Conceptual and perceptual judgments of spin. Unpublished manuscript.
14. HUME, D. (1955). An inquiry concerning human understanding. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1748)
15. HUME, D. (1973). A treatise of human nature. London: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1739-1740; reprinted from Selby-Bigge's 1888 edition)
16. Interactive physics II [Computer software]. (1992). San Francisco: Knowledge Revolution.
17. JOHANSSON, G. (1973). Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 201-211.
18. KAISER, M. K., & PROFFITT, D. R. (1984). The development of sensitivity to causally relevant dynamic information. Child Development, 55, 1614-1624.
19. KAISER, M. K., & PROFFITT, D. R. (1987). Observers' sensitivity to dynamic anomalies in collisions. Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 275-280.
20. KRUSCHKE, J. K., & FRAGASSI, M. M. (1996). The perception of causality: Feature binding in interacting objects. In Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 441-446). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. MacroMind Accelerator [Computer software]. (1989). San Francisco: MacroMind.
22. MCCONNELL, D. S., MUCHISKY, M. M., & BINGHAM, G. P. (1998). The use of time and trajectory forms as visual information about spatial scale in events. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 1175-1187.
23. MERFELD, D. M., ZUPAN, L., & PETERKA, R. J. (1999). Humans use internal models to estimate gravity and linear acceleration. Nature, 398, 615-617.
24. MICHOTTE, A. (1963). The perception of causality (T. Miles & E. Miles, Trans.). London: Methuen. (C. A. Mace, Ed.; originally published as La perception de la causalité. 1946 and 1954.)
25. MICHOTTE, A. (1963). The perception of causality (T. Miles & E. Miles, Trans.). London: Methuen. (C. A. Mace, Ed.; originally published as La perception de la causalité. 1946 and 1954.)
26. MUCHISKY, M. M., & BINGHAM, G. P. (1992). Perceiving size in events via kinematic form. In J. Kruschke (Ed.). Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1002-1007). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. MUCHISKY, M. M., & BINGHAM, G. P. (2002). Trajectory forms as a source of information about events. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 15-31.
28. PEARL, J. (2000). Causality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
29. PITTENGER, J. B. (1990). Detection of violations of the law of pendulum motion: Observers' sensitivity to the relation between period and length. Ecological Psychology, 2, 55-71.
30. PROFFITT, D. R., & GILDEN, D. L. (1989). Understanding natural dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 15, 384-393.
31. PROFFITT, D. R., KAISER, M. K., & WHELAN, S. M. (1990). Understanding wheel dynamics. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 342-373.
32. RUNESON, S. (1983). On visual perception of dynamic events. (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: Studia Psychologica Upsaliensia, No. 9). Uppsala: Academiae Upsaliensis. (Original work published 1977)
33. RUNESON, S. (1995). Support for the cue-heuristic model is based on suboptimal observer performance: Response to Gilden and Proffitt (1994). Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1262-1273.
34. RUNESON, S., & FRYKHOLM, G. (1983). Kinematic specification of dynamics as an informational basis for person-and-action perception: Expectation, gender recognition, and deceptive intention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 585-615.
35. RUNESON, S., & VEDELER, D. (1993). The indispensability of precollision kinematics in the visual perception of relative mass. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 617-632.
36. SAXBERG, B. V. (1987). Projected free fall trajectories: I. Theory and simulation. Biological Cybernetics, 56, 159-175.
37. SCHLOTTMAN, A., & ANDERSON, N. H. (1993). An information integration approach to phenomenal causality. Memory & Cognition, 21, 785-801.
38. SCHLOTTMAN, A., & SHANKS, D. (1992). Evidence for a distinction between judged and perceived causality. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44A, 321-342.
39. SPRLLMAN, B. A. (1996). Acting as intuitive scientists: Contingency judgments are made while controlling for alternative potential causes. Psychological Science, 7, 337-342.
40. WARREN, W. H., JR., KIM, E. E., & HUSNEY, R. (1987). The way the ball bounces: Visual and auditory perception of elasticity and control of the bounce pass. Perception, 16, 309-336.
41. WEIR, S. (1978). The perception of motion: Michotte revisited. Perception, 7, 247-260.
42. WICKELGREN, E. A., & BINGHAM, G. P. (2001). Infant sensitivity to trajectory form. Journal of Experimental Pslchology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 942-952.