Kyushu University · Psychology
Yuki Yamada 교수의 연구실은 인간의 정서적 반응과 인지 처리 메커니즘을 중심으로, '불쾌한 골짜기'(uncanny valley) 현상과 트라이포포비아 같은 비정상적 감정 반응의 심리적 기반을 탐구합니다. 특히 시각적 자극이 인간 인식에 미치는 영향과 신체적 건강 이력이 감정 평가에 어떻게 작용하는지에 초점을 맞추고 있으며, 사회적 위기 상황(예: 코로나19)에서의 정서적 반응도 다룹니다. 이 연구들은 인간의 감정 반응을 이해하는 데 있어 인지심리학과 행동과학의 융합적 접근을 강조합니다.
Figures are computed from collected data and may differ slightly.
Abstract Human observers often experience strongly negative impressions of human‐like objects falling within a particular range of visual similarity to real humans (the “uncanny valley” phenomenon). We hypothesized that negative impressions in the uncanny valley phenomenon are related to a difficulty in object categorization. We produced stimulus images by morphing two of each of real, stuffed, and cartoon human face images (Experiment 1). Observers were asked to categorize each of these images
This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey - an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The data
OPINION article Front. Psychol., 26 September 2018Sec. Quantitative Psychology and Measurement Volume 9 - 2018 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01831
We asked 856 participants to evaluate the discomfort evoked by trypophobic images and to report their past and current skin-related medical problems. Results showed that participants with a history of skin problems rated the pictures as evoking high discomfort as compared to those without skin problems. We conducted another survey to replicate the original survey using additional 690 participants, which confirmed the reliability of the current findings. The current study presents preliminary obs
Abstract A continued lack of clarity persists because academics, policymakers, and other interested parties are unable to clearly define what is a “predatory” journal or publisher, and a potentially wide gray zone exists there. In this perspective, we argue that journals should be evaluated on a continuum, and not just in two shades, black and white. Since evaluations about what might constitute “predatory” are made by humans, the psychological decision-making system that determines them may ind
Open papers in the app to read, cite, and organize with AI.
