IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1007730.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intuitive physical reasoning about objects’ masses transfers to a visuomotor decision task consistent with Newtonian physics

Author

Listed:
  • Nils Neupärtl
  • Fabian Tatai
  • Constantin A Rothkopf

Abstract

While interacting with objects during every-day activities, e.g. when sliding a glass on a counter top, people obtain constant feedback whether they are acting in accordance with physical laws. However, classical research on intuitive physics has revealed that people’s judgements systematically deviate from predictions of Newtonian physics. Recent research has explained at least some of these deviations not as consequence of misconceptions about physics but instead as the consequence of the probabilistic interaction between inevitable perceptual uncertainties and prior beliefs. How intuitive physical reasoning relates to visuomotor actions is much less known. Here, we present an experiment in which participants had to slide pucks under the influence of naturalistic friction in a simulated virtual environment. The puck was controlled by the duration of a button press, which needed to be scaled linearly with the puck’s mass and with the square-root of initial distance to reach a target. Over four phases of the experiment, uncertainties were manipulated by altering the availability of sensory feedback and providing different degrees of knowledge about the physical properties of pucks. A hierarchical Bayesian model of the visuomotor interaction task incorporating perceptual uncertainty and press-time variability found substantial evidence that subjects adjusted their button-presses so that the sliding was in accordance with Newtonian physics. After observing collisions between pucks, which were analyzed with a hierarchical Bayesian model of the perceptual observation task, subjects transferred the relative masses inferred perceptually to adjust subsequent sliding actions. Crucial in the modeling was the inclusion of a cost function, which quantitatively captures participants’ implicit sensitivity to errors due to their motor variability. Taken together, in the present experiment we find evidence that our participants transferred their intuitive physical reasoning to a subsequent visuomotor control task consistent with Newtonian physics and weighed potential outcomes with a cost functions based on their knowledge about their own variability.Author Summary: During our daily lives we interact with objects around us governed by Newtonian physics. While people are known to show multiple systematic errors when reasoning about Newtonian physics, recent research has provided evidence that some of these failures can be attributed to perceptual uncertainties and partial knowledge about object properties. Here, we carried out an experiment to investigate whether people transfer their intuitive physical reasoning to how they interact with objects. Using a simulated virtual environment in which participants had to slide different pucks into a target region by the length of a button press, we found evidence that they could do so in accordance with the underlying physical laws. Moreover, our participants watched movies of colliding pucks and subsequently transferred their beliefs about the relative masses of the observed pucks to the sliding task. Remarkably, this transfer was consistent with Newtonian physics and could well be explained by a computational model that takes participants’ perceptual uncertainty, action variability, and preferences into account.

Suggested Citation

  • Nils Neupärtl & Fabian Tatai & Constantin A Rothkopf, 2020. "Intuitive physical reasoning about objects’ masses transfers to a visuomotor decision task consistent with Newtonian physics," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-26, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1007730
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007730
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007730
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007730&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007730?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruohan Zhang & Shun Zhang & Matthew H Tong & Yuchen Cui & Constantin A Rothkopf & Dana H Ballard & Mary M Hayhoe, 2018. "Modeling sensory-motor decisions in natural behavior," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Peter W Battaglia & Daniel Kersten & Paul R Schrater, 2011. "How Haptic Size Sensations Improve Distance Perception," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(6), pages 1-13, June.
    3. Konrad P. Körding & Daniel M. Wolpert, 2004. "Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning," Nature, Nature, vol. 427(6971), pages 244-247, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Adam N Sanborn & Ulrik R Beierholm, 2016. "Fast and Accurate Learning When Making Discrete Numerical Estimates," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-28, April.
    2. Luigi Acerbi & Sethu Vijayakumar & Daniel M Wolpert, 2014. "On the Origins of Suboptimality in Human Probabilistic Inference," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-23, June.
    3. Luigi Acerbi & Daniel M Wolpert & Sethu Vijayakumar, 2012. "Internal Representations of Temporal Statistics and Feedback Calibrate Motor-Sensory Interval Timing," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-19, November.
    4. Shih-Wei Wu & Maria F Dal Martello & Laurence T Maloney, 2009. "Sub-Optimal Allocation of Time in Sequential Movements," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(12), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Leopold Zizlsperger & Thomas Sauvigny & Thomas Haarmeier, 2012. "Selective Attention Increases Choice Certainty in Human Decision Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-9, July.
    6. Geonhui Lee & Woong Choi & Hanjin Jo & Wookhyun Park & Jaehyo Kim, 2020. "Analysis of motor control strategy for frontal and sagittal planes of circular tracking movements using visual feedback noise from velocity change and depth information," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, November.
    7. Wen-Hao Zhang & Si Wu & Krešimir Josić & Brent Doiron, 2023. "Sampling-based Bayesian inference in recurrent circuits of stochastic spiking neurons," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-19, December.
    8. Seth W. Egger & Stephen G. Lisberger, 2022. "Neural structure of a sensory decoder for motor control," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Tim Genewein & Eduard Hez & Zeynab Razzaghpanah & Daniel A Braun, 2015. "Structure Learning in Bayesian Sensorimotor Integration," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-27, August.
    10. Ofri Raviv & Merav Ahissar & Yonatan Loewenstein, 2012. "How Recent History Affects Perception: The Normative Approach and Its Heuristic Approximation," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-10, October.
    11. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D., 2012. "From perception to action: An economic model of brain processes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 81-103.
    12. Max Berniker & Martin Voss & Konrad Kording, 2010. "Learning Priors for Bayesian Computations in the Nervous System," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-9, September.
    13. Carrillo, Juan & Brocas, Isabelle, 2007. "Reason, Emotion and Information Processing in the Brain," CEPR Discussion Papers 6535, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    14. Jannes Jegminat & Maya A Jastrzębowska & Matthew V Pachai & Michael H Herzog & Jean-Pascal Pfister, 2020. "Bayesian regression explains how human participants handle parameter uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-23, May.
    15. Elina Stengård & Ronald van den Berg, 2019. "Imperfect Bayesian inference in visual perception," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-27, April.
    16. Alice Soldà & Changxia Ke & Lionel Page & William von Hippel, 2020. "Strategically delusional," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(3), pages 604-631, September.
    17. Vassilios N Christopoulos & Paul R Schrater, 2009. "Grasping Objects with Environmentally Induced Position Uncertainty," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-11, October.
    18. Guido Marco Cicchini & Giovanni D’Errico & David Charles Burr, 2022. "Crowding results from optimal integration of visual targets with contextual information," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.
    19. Long Luu & Alan A Stocker, 2021. "Categorical judgments do not modify sensory representations in working memory," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(6), pages 1-28, June.
    20. Udo A Ernst & Sunita Mandon & Nadja Schinkel–Bielefeld & Simon D Neitzel & Andreas K Kreiter & Klaus R Pawelzik, 2012. "Optimality of Human Contour Integration," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-17, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1007730. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.