.


:




:

































 

 

 

 


( 14).




, ( ) , , .

. . 2 " ", " ", " " .

, . 2, , , , ( ) . , , ( - ) . - , , . , , .. . 45 ( 4), -45 ( 5). , . , .. . , " ", - , , . , , -45.

, , , :

. 33

3. ( -) "" ( 2) ( 1)

  SUM1 SUM2 U Z 1 n2
ANN 1138.0 240.0 57.0 -2.32 0.02    
TAM 1196.0 182.0 115.0 -0.66 0.51    
NAP 1254.0 124.0 103.0 -1.00 0.32    
APL 1177.0 201.0 96.0 1.20 0.23    
TPR 1331.0 47.0 26.0 3.21 0.00    
TPL 1343.5 34.5 13.5 3.57 0.00    
TRU 1196.0 182.0 115.0 -0.66 0.51    
TLU 1188.0 190.0 107.0 -0.89 0.37    
TA 1148.0 230.0 67.0 -2.03 0.04    
DIH 1208.0 118.0 103.0 0.38 0.70    
ROZ 1170.0 105.0 90.0 0.73 0.47    
KRT 1127.5 147.5 92.5 -0.65 0.52    

-----

. . . ( < 0.05) . SUM1 - 1, SUM2 - 2.

, , . . . , , - .

"" - , : , - .

, , , .

- , , ( 12), .. , . , , /, , .

, .. / , , "": , , , , . , (. 3).

, "" , -, , ; -, ( ) .

, " ", , , , ( , R = 0.57, = 0.0003). " ", , ; , -

. 34

. " " " " " " . , /, , , - , .

, " ".

. , . , (45 -45). , , , .

. . [2] . , . , , - . . . . . [1] .

. , , , .. .

, , - . , . , , , - , . , .

. . . . [3] . , , - , , -. , . . . , , , , . ( - , - ).

, , " ". , . , "" , . , , [6].

1. " ", /.

. 35

2. " " , : ; ; .

, . , , . , , .

4. , , " ", , . " " " " , , .

1. . ., . . . ., 1981.

2. . . // . 1989. . 15. N 6. . 8 - 15.

3. . ., . . : . ., 1995. . 70 - 81.

4. . . . . ., 2002.

5. . ., . ., . ., . . . ., 1997.

6. . . . .: , 2003.

7. Bakan P. The eyes have it // Psychology today. 1971. V. 4 (7). P. 64 - 67.

8. Beer J. Hemispheric dominance inferred from your style of learning and thinking on reports of Necker cube reversals and maze learning // Percept. Motor Skills. 1988. V. 66. P. 887 - 890.

9. Cohen B. D., Berent S., Silverman A J. Field dependence and lateralization of function in the human brain // Archives of General Psychiatry. 1973. V. 28. P. 165 - 167.

10. Hoffman C., Kagan S. Lateral eye movement and field dependence-independence // Percept. Motor Skills. 1977. V. 45. P. 767 - 778.

11. Pierro R. A., Goldberger L. Lateral eye-movements, field dependence and denial // Percept. Motor Skills. 1982. V. 55 (2). P. 371 - 378.

12. Shevrin H., Smokier O. A., Wolf E. Field independence, lateralization and defensive style. // Percept. Motor Skills. 1979. V. 49. P. 195 - 202.

13. Tinajero C., Paramo M. F., Cadaveira F., Rodriguez-Holguin S. Field dependence-independence and brain organization: the confluence of two different ways of describing general forms of cognitive functioning? A theoretical review // Percept. Motor Skills. 1993. Part 1. P. 787 - 802.

14. Within H. A., Dyk R. B., Faterson H. F. et al. Psychological differentiation. N. Y., 1962.

15. Witkin H. A., Lewis H. B., Hertzman M. et al. Personality through perception. N. Y., 1954.

16. Witkin H. A., Asch S. E. Studies in space orientation: IV. Further experiments on perception of the upricht with displaced visual fields // Journ. of Exper. Psychology. 1948. V. 38. P. 762 - 782.

17. Witkin H. A., Oltman P. I., Raskin E. et al. A manual for the Embedded Figures Tests. Consulting Psychol. Press, Inc., 1971.

FIELD DEPENDENCE/FIELD INDEPENDENCE AND HEMISPHERIC ASYMMETRY

E. G. Udachina, PhD, senior research assistant of posttraumatic stress laboratory, Psychological Institute ofRAS, Moscow

S. V. Kvasovets, PhD, head of psychophysiological researches laboratory, State intersectoral scientific and technological center "Science", Ministry of Education and Science ofRF, Moscow

The relationship between field dependence-independence and functional asymmetry of hemispheres was investigated. The modified "Rod-and-frame" computer technique and "Embedded figures" test were used. It is shown, that in case of perceptual task of vertical positioning field dependence is defined, at least, by three factors. The first is the preference of the left field of vision which is connected with the decrease of left hemisphere activation. Second is the position of elements of a background in the left or the right field of vision; thus field dependence correlates with activation of contra-lateral hemispheres. The third is the factor of the control and correction of the activity, connected with activation of the left hemisphere. Results of "Embedded figures" technique correlated only with dominance of the left hemisphere. Correlations between two methods of field dependence estimation were not revealed, that testified essential distinction of the mechanisms participating in performance of these tasks.

Key words: field dependence-independence, hemispheric asymmetry, neuropsychology.

. 36

: . .

1

. . , , ,

. : , . ( 3/4 3/4 ) .

: , , , .

- . , , : , , , . . , , , , , . , . . [7,8]. 70- . XX . (A. Meltzoff) [15], , 2 - 3 . .

(I. Bushnell) [10] , - . , , , . , , , 95%.

, . . , . , , .

. , , , , [4, 6]. - [17]. - - , [12].

, , . , , -

1 , N 05 - 06 - 80358. ., .

. 37

.

, , , -, , , , , . , .

, (, 20 40 [14]; ), , 20- 40- . , . (. Wild) [19], : , . .

, (>95%), . , "" . . , . (A. Cellerino) , 1792 , 112- , [12]. , .

, , , . : - (, ) , "" .

, , .

. . , .

, , , , .

.

1. . - () () . .

- - , , .. . , . (V. Brace) , , , , , [9].

- - , (. [16]).

, . . (, , -

. 38

..). , . [16].

, [4 - 6]. "" , . , , , .

2. . , , . , .

. (. . Chronicle) . -. (M. - Y. Chan) [13] , : , . , , , - . , , . , .

, , . , , , , , , .

- - . [3], , , , , , . -, . (J. Schirillo) [18], .

, , : 68% 56% , . , 20 . , , , .

: -, ; -, , . .

" " . . [1]. (, .); , . , , .

, . , , .

. (R. Campbell) [11] . . , , . , . -

. 39

"" .

, " " , .

. , .

:

1. , , .

2. .

. 75 (34 41 ) 18 25 : (23 16 ), (18 ) N 10 (18 ).

10 15 . Sony DCR-TRV120E. ULEAD MEDIA STUDIO 7.0 : 3/4 .

28 ( 1) 1 9 ( 4.7 ); 30 7- (. 2) 32 17 25 , 19.8 (. 3).

, .. (, ).

7- , Photoshop 6.0 , .

. 40

: ( 2), - , ( 2).

: ( ) - ( 3), Photoshop 6.0 Flip Horizontal. , - .

. , (), , , .

. :

- ,

- 7- ( ),

- 7- ( ),

- 20- ( ),

- 20- ( ).

: ", . /, - /. , . ".

. , Excel SPSS 11.0. -, - .

, . 4.

7- . , -

,

. 4. , 7- 20- - .

. 41

. 5. , .

20- ( Z = 5.23; = 0.00). .

, 7 , .. , , . - , - .

20- : . , , . - . , . . , . , ( ), , , . . , , , , . . .

, , , , , , , ( ), . , , . . .

( 5). 7- ( - 7- ( ) Z = 3.41; = 0.00; - 7- ( ) - Z = 3.48; = 0.00).

, . 7- . 50% .

, . - - , .

, - ; , , , . . , . .

. 42

, , , .

, . , , , . .

: Z = 3.64; = 0.00, Z = = 4.02; = 0.00.

, , - 7- - , . , , 7- , , , , .

-, ( ), , .

[4 - 6], , , , . .

. 20- . , . , 7- , , .

, : , .

1. . ( 59.07%) 7- ( 58.26%). 20- 88.72%.

2. , .

3. ( ), , 88%. , , .

4. 7- , . - - . . . 7- .

7-

. 6. 7- .

. 43

1. . . " ". . .... . . . ., 2003.

2. . . : . : -2, 2004.

3. . - ., ., . , // . / . . . , . , . . .: , 1995.

4. . . . . .... . . . ., 2001.

5. . ., . . : // , 1999. N 4. . 160 - 169.

6. . ., . . // . . 2004. . 25. N 4. . 5 - 13.

7. . . . .: , 1992.

8. . . : . .: - , 2006.

9. Bruce V., Valentine T. When a nod's as good as a wink: The role of dynamic information in facial recognition // Practical aspects of memory: current research and issues. V. 1 / Ed. M. Gruneberg et al. 1988. P. 169 - 174.

10. Bushnell I.W. R. Mother's face recognition in newborn infants: Learning and memory // Infant and child development. 2001. V. 10. N 1 - 2. P. 67 - 74.

11. Campbell R., Benson Ph. J., Wallace S. B. et al. More about brows: How poses that change brow position affect perceptions of gender // Perception. 1999. V. 28. P. 489 - 504.

12. Cellerino A., Borghetti D., Sartucci F. Sex differences in face gender recognition in humans // Brain Res. Bull. 2004. V. 65. P. 179 - 184.

13. Chronicle E. P., Chan Mei-Yin et al. You can tell by the nose - judging sex from an isolated facial feature // Perception. 1995. V. 24. P. 969 - 973.

14. Mantylia T. Recollecting of faces: remembering differences and knowing similarities // Journ. of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 1997. V. 23. N 5. P. 1203 - 1216.

15. Meltzoff A. N., Moore M. X. Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates // Science. 1977. V. 198. P. 75 - 78.

16. 'Toole A. J., Roark D. A., Abdi H. Recognizing moving faces: A psychological and neural synthesis // Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2002. V. 6. P. 261 - 266.

17. Penton-Voak I. S., Perrett D. I. Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: Further evidence // Evolution and Human Behavior. 2000. V. 21. P. 39 - 48.

18. Schirillo J. Hemispheric asymmetries and gender influence Rembrandt's portrait orientations // Neuropsychologic 2000. V. 38. P. 1593 - 1606.

19. Wild H. H., Barrett S. E., Spence M. J., O'Toole A. J., Cheng Y. D., Brooke J. Recognition and sex categorization of adults' and children's faces in the absence of sex stereotyped cues // Journ. of Experimental Child Psychology. 2000. V. 77. P. 269 - 291.

SEX CATEGORIZATION ACCORDING TO FACE IMAGE PRESENTATION MODE

E. A. Nikitina, PhD, research assistant of Psychological Institute of RAS, Moscow

The role of experimental factors in sex categorization of faces was studied. When pictures of unknown to probationers faces are presented, such two conditions as static or dynamic picture is used in experiment and open or masked ears are on the picture influence significantly on its sex categorization. Face direction (3/4 to the right or 3/4 to the left) doesn't exert influence on sex categorization of adult faces.

Key words: face perception, categorization, sex differences, stimuli presentation modes.

. 44

:

: . . , . . , . .

I

. . , , ,





:


: 2016-12-06; !; : 373 |


:

:

, .
==> ...

1762 - | 1585 -


© 2015-2024 lektsii.org - -

: 0.153 .