Dynamics and the Perception of Causal Events

Understanding Events: From Perception to Action

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages

  Wolff, Phillip ^a  

^a EMORY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Causation; Dynamics model; Epistemological theory of causation; Event perception; Reasoning

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920154680     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195188370.003.0023     Document Type: Chapter

References (66)

1. Ahn, W., & Bailenson, J. (1996). Mechanism-based explanations of causal attribution: An explanation of conjunction and discounting effect. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 82-123.
2. Ahn, W., & Kalish, C. W. (2000). The role of mechanism beliefs in causal reasoning. In F. C. Keil & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and cognition (pp. 199-225). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Ahn, W., Kalish, C. W., Medin, D. L., & Gelman, S. A. (1995). The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution. Cognition, 54, 299-352.
4. Aronson, J. L. (1971). On the grammar of 'CAUSE.' Synthese, 22, 414-430.
5. Bigelow, J., Ellis, B., & Pargetter, R. (1988). Forces. Philosophy of Science, 55, 614-630.
6. Bigelow, J., & Pargetter, R. (1990). Metaphysics of causation. Erkenntnis, 33, 89-119.
7. Bullock, M., Gelman, R., & Baillargeon, R. (1982). The development of causal reasoning. In W. Friedman (Ed.), The developmental psychology of time (pp. 209-255). London: Academic Press.
8. Bunge, M. (1959). Causality: the place of the causal principle in modern science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
9. Cheng, P. W. (1997). From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. Psychological Review, 104, 367-405.
10. Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (1991). Causes versus enabling conditions. Cognition, 40, 83-120.
11. Cheng, P. W., & Novick, L. R. (1992). Covariation in natural causal induction. Psychological Review, 99, 365-382.
12. Choi, H., & Scholl, B. J. (2004). Effects of grouping and attention on the perception of causality. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 926-942.
13. Clement, J. (1983). A conceptual model discussed by Galileo and used intuitively by physics students. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Cohen, L. B., Amsel, G., Redford, M. A., & Casasola, M. (1998). The development of infant causal perception. In A. Slater (Ed.), Perceptual development: Visual, auditory, and speech perception in infancy (pp. 167-209). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
15. diSessa, A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10, 105-225.
16. Dowe, P. (2000). Physical causation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Fair, D. (1979). Causation and the flow of energy. Erkenntnis, 14, 219-250.
18. Gilden, D. L. (1991). On the origins of dynamical awareness. Psychological Review, 98, 554-568.
19. Goldvarg, E., & Johnson-Laird, P. (2001). Naive causality: A mental model theory of causal meaning and reasoning. Cognitive Science, 25, 565-610.
20. Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D., Shulz, L., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 1-31.
21. Hecht, H. (1996). Heuristics and invariants in dynamic event perception: Immunized concepts or nonstatements? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 61-70.
22. Hubbard, T. L., & Ruppel, S. E. (2002). A possible role of naive impetus in Michotte's "Launching Effect:" Evidence from representational momentum. Visual Cognition, 9, 153-176.
23. Hume, D. (1737/1978). A Treatise of human nature (L. A. Selby-Bigge, Ed.). Second ed., revised by P. H. Nidditch. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
24. Hume, D. (1748/1975). Enquiry concerning human understanding. In L. A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.), Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals, 3rd ed., revised by P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
25. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Joskowicz, L., & Sacks, E. (1991). Computational kinematics. Artificial Intelligence, 51, 381-416.
27. Kaiser, M. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (1984). The development of sensitivity to causally-relevant dynamic information. Child Development, 55, 1614-1624.
28. Kaiser, M. K., Proffitt, D. R., Whelan, S. M., & Hecht, H. (1992). The influence of animation on dynamical judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 669-690.
29. Leslie, A. M. (1994). ToMM, ToBy, and agency: Core architecture and domain specificity. In L. Hirschfield & S. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 119-148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Luhmann, C. C., & Ahn, W. (2005). The meaning and computation of causal power: Comment on Cheng (1997) and Novick and Cheng (2004). Psychological Review, 112, 685-692.
31. Mackie, J. L. (1974). The cement of the universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32. McCloskey, M. (1983). Naïve theories of motion. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299-324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33. McCloskey, M., & Kohl, D. (1983). Naïve physics: The curvilinear impetus principle and its role in interactions with moving objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 146-156.
34. McCloskey, M., Washburn, A., & Felch, L. (1983). Intuitive physics: The straight-down belief and its origin. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 636-649.
35. Michotte, A. E. (1946/1963). The perception of causality. New York: Basic Books.
36. Oakes, L. M. (1994). The development of infants' use of continuity cues in their perception of causality. Developmental Psychology, 30, 869-879.
37. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. 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, 55-81.
40. Proffitt, D. R., & Gilden, D. L. (1989). Understanding natural dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 384-393.
41. 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.
42. Runeson, S., Juslin, P., & Olsson, H. (2000). Visual perception of dynamic properties: cue heuristic versus direct-perceptual competence. Psychological Review, 107, 525-555.
43. Runeson, S., & Vedeler, D. (1993). The indispensability of precollision kinematics in the visual perception of relative mass. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 617-632.
44. Russell, B. (1948). Human knowledge. New York: Simon and Schuster.
45. Salmon, W. (1994). Causality without counterfactuals. Philosophy of Science, 61, 297-312.
46. Salmon, W. (1998). Causality and explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47. Scholl, B. J., & Tremoulet, P. D. (2000). Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 299-309.
48. Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Physical imagery: Kinematic versus dynamic models. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 433-464.
49. Shultz, T. R. (1982). Rules of causal attribution. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 47, 1-51.
50. Siskind, J. M. (2003). Reconstructing force-dynamics models from video sequences. Artificial Intelligence, 151, 91-154.
51. Sloman, S. (2005). Causal models: How people think about the world and its alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52. Sloman, S. A., & Lagnado, D. A. (2005). Do we "do"? Cognitive Science, 29, 5-39.
53. Sobel, D. M., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Gopnik, A. (2004). Children's causal inferences from indirect evidence: Backwards blocking and Bayesian reasoning in preschoolers. Cognitive Science, 28, 303-333.
54. Talmy, L. (1985). Force dynamics in language and thought. In W. Eilfort, P. Kroeber, & K. Peterson (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on causatives and agentivity at the 21st regional meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 293-337). Chicago:Chicago Linguistics Society.
55. Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-100.
56. Tenenbaum, J. B., & Griffiths, T. L. (2001). Structure learning in human causal induction. In T. Leen, T. Dietterich & V. Tresp (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 13 (pp. 59-65). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
57. Thinés, G., Costall, A., & Butterworth, G. (Eds.) (1991). Michotte's experimental phenomenology of perception. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.
58. Twardy, C. R., & Bingham, G. P. (2002). Causation, causal perception, and conservation laws. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 956-968.
59. Verhagen, A. (2002). Interpreting usage: Construing the history of Dutch causal verbs. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
60. Verhagen, A., & Kemmer, S. (1997). Interaction and causation: A cognitive approach to causative constructions in Modern Standard Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 61-82.
61. White, P. A. (2000). Naive analysis of food web dynamics: A study of causal judgment about complex physical systems. Cognitive Science, 24, 605-650.
62. Wolff, P. (2003). Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal events. Cognition, 88, 1-48.
63. Wolff, P. (2007). Representing causation. Journal of Experiment Psychology: General, 136, 82-111.
64. Wolff, P., Klettke, B., Ventura, T., & Song, G. (2005). Categories of causation across cultures. In W. Ahn, R. L. Goldstone, B. C. Love, A. B. Markman, & P. Wolff (Eds.), Categorization inside and outside of the lab: Festschrift in honor of Douglas L. Medin (pp. 29-48). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
65. Wolff, P., & Song, G. (2003). Models of causation and the semantics of causal verbs. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 276-332.
66. Wolff, P., & Zettergren, M. (2002). A vector model of causal meaning. In W. D. Gray & C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 944-949). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.