Conference PaperPDF Available
Kognícia a umelý
Kognícia a umelý
život 2019
život 2019
zostavili
Igor Fark
Igor Fark
Martin Takáč
Martin Takáč
Peter Gergeľ
Peter Gergeľ
Matúš Tomko
Matúš Tomko
Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave – 2019
Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave – 2019
Hotel Barónka
Hotel Barónka
Bratislava – Rača
Bratislava – Rača
29. 5. – 31. 5. 2019
29. 5. – 31. 5. 2019
Kognícia a umelý život 2019
(recenzovaný zborník)
Vznik tejto publikácie bol podporený Kultúrnou a edukačnou agentúrou Ministerstva školstva, vedy a
športu Slovenskej republiky (KEGA), v rámci projektu č. 042UK-4/2019.
Recenzenti príspevkov:
prof. RNDr. Ľubica Beňušková, PhD. prof. RNDr. Ľubica Lacinová, DrSc.
Ing. Ivana Budinská, PhD. Mgr. Martin Marko, PhD.
RNDr. Barbora Cimrová, PhD. doc. RNDr. Mária Markošová, PhD.
doc. PaedDr. Vladimíra Kurincová Čavojová, PhD. PhDr. Eva Ballová Mikušková, PhD.
Ing. Mgr. Jiří Čeněk, PhD. doc. PhDr. Ján Rybár, PhD.
prof. PhDr. Andrej Démuth, PhD. doc. Ing. Branislav Sobota, PhD.
Mgr. Katarína Dudeková, PhD. doc. PhDr. Filip Smolík, PhD.
prof. Ing. Igor Farkaš, Dr. doc. Ing. Petr Sosík, Dr.
Mgr. Miroslava Galasová, MA Mgr. Aleš Svoboda
Mgr. Juraj Hvorecký, PhD. Mgr. Čeněk Šašinka, PhD.
PhDr. Jana Kuzmíková, CSc. doc. RNDr. Martin Takáč, PhD.
RNDr. Andrej Lúčny, PhD. Mgr. Michal Vavrečka, PhD.
Vydavateľ: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave
Šafárikovo nám. 6
81000 Bratislava
Zostavili: prof. Ing. Igor Farkaš, Dr., 2019
doc. RNDr. Martin Takáč, PhD., 2019
Mgr. Peter Gergeľ, 2019
Mgr. Matúš Tomko, 2019
Autorské práva c
autori príspevkov, 2019
Dizajn obálky c
Marcel Klimo a Peter Gergeľ, 2019
Tlač: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave
Vydané v Bratislave v máji 2019
ISBN 978-80-223-4720-4
Predslov
Milé kolegyne a kolegovia,
v poradí už 19. vydanie zborníka konferencie Kognícia a umelý život je na svete, a to vďaka Vám,
našej stabilnej česko-slovenskej komunite, ktorá reflektovala na toto podujatie a rozhodla sa prispieť
svojou aktívnou účasťou. Je skvelé, že tohoročný počet účastníkov opäť prekročil päťdesiatku, a to
vďaka, napriek, alebo možno nezávisle od novej lokality, v Bratislave, kam sme sa rozhodli tohoročné
podujatie umiestniť.
Na minuloročnej konferencii organizovanej kolegami z Brna sme zažili bujarý kultúrny program,
s ktorým je ťažké súperiť
,
. My sme sa rozhodli pre striedmejší model – veríme, že neštruktúrované
večery využijete na pokračovanie plodných interdisciplinárnych diskusií a na prehĺbenie osobných
vzťahov. Tiež dúfame, že v publikovaných dlhších i krátkych príspevkoch v zborníku nájdete inšpiračné
zdroje pre ďalšie skúmanie v oblastiach vášho záujmu. Myslíme si, že eko-prístup sa už stal štandardom,
a tak sme i tento rok ušetrili nejaký ten strom elektronickým zborníkom.
Tradičnou súčasťou programu budú tri pozvané odborné prednášky. Prof. Zsolt Cséfalvay (Peda-
gogická fakulta UK v Bratislave) nás uvedie do výskumu degradácie prirodzeného jazyka v dôsledku
starnutia, jej diagnostiky a prípadnej terapie. Doc. Marián Špajdel (Filozofická fakulta Trnavskej uni-
verzity) ponúkne prehľad výskumu kognitívnych funkcií vo vzťahu k funkčnej asymetrii hemisfér a
vysvetlí metodologické otázky skúmania tejto problematiky pomocou neinvazívnych behaviorálnych
techník. Dr. Michal Vavrečka (ČVUT Praha) nás opäť vráti do sveta jazyka, ale z pohľadu modelovania
a strojového učenia v rámci kognitívnej robotiky, keď pozornosť zameria na osvojovanie si jazyka
opisujúceho statické a dynamické vizuálne scény.
Spektrum príspevkov pokrýva rôzne oblasti od psychológie, cez neurovedu, jazykovedu, umelú
inteligenciu, až po filozofiu, a to v podobe prác teoretického aj experimentálneho charakteru. Príspevky
prešli recenzným konaním, ktoré prebehlo vďaka ochote a poctivej práci všetkých 24 oslovených
recenzentov, za čo im srdečne ďakujeme. Opäť sme pripravili aj posterovú sekciu, ktorá umožňuje dlhšie
interakcie autorov so záujemcami.
Za pomoc pri príprave konferencie patrí veľké poďakovanie členom Centra pre kognitívnu vedu na
Fakulte matematiky, fyziky a informatiky Univerzity Komenského v Bratislave. Osobitne oceňujeme
nasadenie Petra Gergeľa, Matúša Tomka, Kristíny Malinovskej a Xenie Daniely Poslon.
Vké poďakovanie patrí aj Mgr. Jurajovi Hvoreckému, PhD, ktorému sa opäť podarilo získať grant
v rámci programu Stratégia 21 Akadémie vied ČR a finančne podporiť našu konferenciu, vďaka čomu
sme dokázali znížiť vložné. Slovenská spoločnosť pre kognitívnu vedu podporila účasť študenta Ondreja
Spišáka.
Vydanie konferenčného zborníka bolo podporené Kultúrnou a edukačnou agentúrou Ministerstva
školstva, vedy, výskumu a športu Slovenskej republiky (KEGA) v rámci projektu č. 042UK-4/2019.
Užite si KUŽ 2019!
Bratislava, máj 2019 Igor Farkaš a Martin Takáč
Obsah
Pozvanírečníci .......................................... 7
Gender and risk taking: in need of replication, structure and common sense
Magdalena Adamus, Katarína Dudeková ............................. 8
Does analytical thinking protect people against unfounded beliefs? Cognitive reflection, depres-
sion, proneness to paranormal explanation and astrology
Eva Ballová Mikušková, Vladimíra Čavojová ........................... 10
What are they afraid of? Cognitive predictors of risk assessment related to refugees.
Jana Bašnáková, Lenka Valuš ................................... 13
SkyBat: model swarmového správania inšpirovaný prírodou
Ivana Budinská, Tomáš Kasanický, Ján Zelenka ......................... 15
To be or not to be bullshit? Obscuring the form vs. moving away from truthfulness
Vladimíra Čavojová, Marek Jurkovič, Ivan Brezina ....................... 17
Pre-processing eye-trackingových dat z více zařízení a jejich analýza v programu Ogama
Jiří Čeněk ............................................. 20
Etické principy regulace chování umělé inteligence
David Černý ............................................ 22
Meranie kapacity vizuálnej priestorovej pracovnej pamäte a schopnosti filtrácie
Barbora Cimrová, Igor Farkaš, Peter Gergeľ, Roman Rosipal .................. 29
A connectionist model of acquisition of noun phrases with syntactic bootstrapping
Benjamin Fele, Martin Takáč ................................... 31
Syntaktický priming v českom jazyku
Maroš Filip, Filip Smolík ..................................... 33
Zachraňovanie nevinných mačiatok aktívne otvoreným myslením
Miroslava Galasová, Lenka Valuš ................................ 35
On the multimodal metaphor "Dance is Language
Silvia Gáliková .......................................... 37
Webové kolaboratívne virtuálne prostredie pre podporu kognitívneho tréningu
Marián Hudák, Branislav Sobota, Štefan Korečko ........................ 39
Komponentná analýza vedomých stavov
Juraj Hvorecký .......................................... 41
Eye-tracking ve virtuální realitě: implementace a možnosti měření
Vojtěch Juřík, Čeněk Šašinka, Pavel Ugwitz ........................... 45
Analysing and modelling functional brain networks
Andrej Jursa, Mária Markošo ................................. 48
Generatívne modely vývoja biologických štruktúr
Alica Kelemenová ......................................... 54
Koordinácia ruka-oko v simulátore humanoidného robota
Martin Kellner, Igor Farkaš .................................... 59
Emergentnosť literárnej metafory
Jana Kuzmíková, Marcel Kvassay, Peter Krammer, Mária Kénesy Túnyiová ........... 61
Metody počítačového testování kognitivního stylu
David Lacko ............................................ 63
Integrácia moderných prostriedkov umelej inteligencie do mobilného robota
Andrej Lúčny ........................................... 70
Život a umelá inteligencia – hľadanie analógií
Anton Markoš ........................................... 75
Umelá inteligencia pomáha deťom s osvojovaním čítania
Marek Nagy ............................................ 79
Učenie posilňovaním a interná motivácia
Matej Pecháč ........................................... 85
Political discourse perception predicts Roma stereotype endorsement
Xenia D. Poslon, Barbara Lášticová, Miroslav Popper, Anna Kende ............... 87
Simple minds—yeast as a model neuron
Isabella Sarto-Jackson, Ľubomír Tomaška ............................ 89
Virtuálne prostredie pre experimentálne posúdenie kognitívnych funkcií
Branislav Sobota, Štefan Korečko, Igor Farkaš, Marián Hudák, Martin Sivý, Peter Vasiľ, Dominik
Trojčák ............................................... 93
Vision-based Adaptation of the Frequency-dependent Weighting of the Localization Cues
Ondrej Spišák, René Šebeňa, Peter Lokša, Maike Ferber, Bernhard Laback, Norbert Kopčo . . 99
Virtuální realita v procesu komunikace kartografické informace
Zdeněk Stachoň, Ondřej Kvarda, Lukáš Herman, Čeněk Šašinka ................ 101
Learning a peripersonal space representation using Conditional Restricted Boltzmann Machine
Zdeněk Straka, Matěj Hoffmann ................................. 104
Suprematismus, rayonismus, neoplasticismus a elementarismus v kontextu imitační hry
Aleš Svoboda ........................................... 106
Ztraceno v kontrole
Čeněk Šašinka, Alžběta Šašinková, Vojtěch Juřík ......................... 110
Kolaborativní imerzivní virtuální prostředí jako nástroj pro výzkum interkulturních rozdílů
Alžběta Šašinková, Čeněk Šašinka ................................ 112
Modulární neuronové sítě: metody zvyšující robustnost sémantického popisu scény
Gabriela Šejnová, Michal Vavrečka ................................ 114
Jak číst standard(y) a něco si z toho vzít
Petr Švarný, Matěj Hoffmann ................................... 116
Computational model of CA1 pyramidal cell with meta-STDP stabilizes under ongoing sponta-
neous activity as in vivo
Matúš Tomko, Ľubica Beňušková, Peter Jedlička ......................... 118
Few-shot semantic segmentation using REPTILE meta-learning approach
Matúš Tuna, Igor Farkaš ..................................... 124
Prototyp nástroje TrailScript pro evaluaci chování ve virtuálním prostředí
Pavel Ugwitz, Zdeněk Stachoň, Lukáš Herman .......................... 126
Význam, uplatnění a návrhy na vylepšení smečkových algoritmů
Daniel Valenta, Petr Sosík .................................... 129
Mind the next generations: Boosting pro-ecological worldviews via social responsibility appeals
Lenka Valuš, Viera Bačová .................................... 135
Inteligentní infrastruktury: požehnání, nebo prokletí?
Jiří Wiedermann .......................................... 137
Registerautorov.......................................... 141
Political discourse perception predicts Roma stereotype endorsement
Xenia Daniela Poslon1,2, Barbara Lášticová1, Miroslav Popper1, Anna Kende3
1 Institute for Research in Social Communication, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dúbravská ceste 9, 841 04 Bratislava
2 Department of School Education, Faculty of Education, Trnava University in Trnava, Priemyselná 4, 918 43 Trnava
3 Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Kazinczy u. 23 -27, 1075 Budapest
xenia-daniela.poslon@savba.sk; baraba.lasticova@savba.sk; miroslav.popper@savba.sk; kende.anna@ppt.elte.hu
Abstract
Current political climate in Central Europe is fostering
segregation and discrimination of minority groups,
which is becoming increasingly normatively appropriate
in public. For this reason, it is crucial to understand the
link between political rhetoric and the perception of
Roma people by the majority. In this study, we aimed to
assess how the perceptions of current political discourse
predict the endorsement of prejudice towards the Roma.
We measured the acceptance of four types of political
discourse: openly hostile, promoting allyship with the
Roma, paternalistic, and a form of double-talk. As
expected, prejudice (blatantly negative stereotyping and
belief in underserved benefits) towards the Roma was
positively related to openly hostile and double-talk
discourses, and negatively related to paternalistic and
ally discourse. The opposite was found in the case of
cultural stereotypes.
1 Introduction
Roma people remain the most segregated ethnic
minority in Slovakia and are targets of widespread
prejudice. Yet, we still understand little about the
psychological mechanisms underlying these attitudes,
since the persisting prejudice towards the Roma cannot
be explained by traditional social cognitive models
only. According to recent study, antigypsyism should be
treated as a unique form of prejudice (Kende, Hadarics,
& Lášticová, 2017), seeing that intergroup contact in
this case increases rather than reduces prejudice (for
intergroup contact hypothesis see Pettigrew & Tropp,
2006). Secondly, anti-Roma attitudes tend to reflect
dominant societal norms. Right-wing populist parties
are gaining popularity in Central Europe by fuelling
tensions between social groups. The subsequent sense
of threat increases all forms of intergroup hatred.
The aim of our study was to analyse how the perception
of currently dominant forms of political discourse
relates to prejudice towards the Roma. Building on
previous research (Kende et al., 2017), three types of
anti-Roma attitudes were measured: blatant negative
stereotyping, undeserved benefits, and stereotypes about
cultural differences. We identified that several types of
political discourse are used when referring to the
Roma (see Kóczé, & Rövid, 2017), that can be solely
negative, positive, or ambivalent. We were interested
to see whether and how the degree of acceptance of
these discourses are associated with and predict the
expression of anti-Roma prejudice.
2 Methods
Our sample consisted of 213 participants (Nmale=131,
Nfemale=75, Mage=27.91). They filled out a
questionnaire measuring the acceptance of four types
of statements used by politicians when referring to the
Roma. The first type of discourse is openly hostile:
“They [politicians] make negative statements about the
Roma regarding criminality and work ethics.”. The
second type of discourse, triggered by the threat of
recent immigration crisis1, is a sort of a double-talk it
is positively phrased, but essentially negative: “They
say that dealing with the Roma is our main problem,
and in order to focus on that we should not use our
financial resources on immigrants.”. The third
common rhetoric when it comes to the Roma is
benevolent, but paternalistic discourse, which
emphasizes that Roma integration efforts are
dependent solely on the help offered by the majority:
“They suggest that we need to help the Roma in all
areas of life (housing, education, employment, health
and family matters), because without our help, they
cannot solve their own problems.”. The fourth type of
discourse communicates allyship with the Roma by
encouraging the majority to advocate the rights of the
Roma: (“They propose that non-Roma Slovaks should
join the Roma in their struggle against
discrimination.”). The items measuring anti-Roma
attitudes were adapted from ATRS scale (Kende, et al.
2017) consisting of three dimensions: blatant
stereotyping (e.g. “The growing Roma population
1For example, when referring to the refugees, former Prime
Minister R. Fico declared that „we are unable to integrate
our own Roma fellow-citizens, which we have hundreds of
thousands of them. How can we then integrate the people
whose traditions, religion, and way of life are completely
different?“ (Pravda, 29.8. 2015)
87
Kognícia a umelý život 2019, Bratislava – Rača
threatens the security of society.”), undeserved benefits
(e.g. “Roma people in this country are given preferential
treatment in certain aspects.”) and cultural difference
(e.g. “Roma people have rich artistic traditions.”). All
items were measured on 7-point Likert scales
(completely acceptable - completely unacceptable;
completely agree - completely disagree).
3 Results
Participants showed higher acceptance of openly hostile
(M=4.20) and double-talk statements (M=3.90) than the
paternalistic (M=3.56) and allyship discourse (M=3.66).
The statistical analysis showed both blatant stereotyping
and undeserved benefits correlate positively with the
acceptance of open hostility discourse (r = .43, p <.001;
r = .42, p <.001, respectively) and positively, but
slightly less with double-talk statements (r = .24, p
<.001; r = .22, p = .001, resp.). Conversely, both types
of anti-Roma prejudice showed a negative relationship
with the paternalistic (r = -.47, p <.001; r = -.41, p
<.001, resp.) and allyship discourse (r = -.52, p <.001; r
= -.51, p <.001, resp.). We found the opposite in case of
cultural difference: negative correlation with the open
hostility (r = -.31, p <.001) and double-talk (r = -.21, p
= .002), and positive correlation with the paternalistic (r
= .27, p <.001) and allyship discourses (r = .43, p
<.001).
To further explore these results, we ran separate
multiple regression analyses for each dimension of
prejudice as dependent variables. A significant
regression equation was found in case of blatant
stereotyping [F(4,208) = 34.01, p <.001, R2 = .40].
Openly hostile (β = .22, p < .001), paternalistic (β = -
.27, p < .001) and allyship (β = -.33, p < .001)
discourses were significant predictors of blatant
stereotyping, but double-talk was not (β = .08, p = .188).
Similarly, the undeserved benefits were predicted by
openly hostile (β = .24, p < .001), paternalistic (β = -.19,
p =.002) and allyship (β = -.33, p < .001), but not by
double-talk discourse (β = .05, p = .409). The overall
model fit was R2 = .36 [F(4,208) = 29.62, p <.000]. In
case of cultural difference, a significant regression
equation was found [F(4,208) = 15.08, p <.000, R2 =
.23], with only allyship (β = .33, p < .001) and openly
hostile discourse (β = -.14, p = .049) as significant
predictors. Double-talk and paternalistic discourses
were not significant (β = -.09, p =.195; β = .07, p = .306,
resp.).
4 Discussion
The aim of our research was to understand the relation
between four dominant types of political discourse
about the Roma on the one hand and anti-Roma
attitudes on the other. As expected, our results
suggested opposite patterns for the openly negative and
openly positive discourses: openly hostile and allyship
for social change. Participants that showed higher
acceptance of openly hostile political discourse and
lower acceptance of discourse promoting allyship for
social change also expressed more blatant prejudice
and higher belief in the Roma receiving undeserved
benefits. Interestingly, there was no difference in the
direction of the relationship between paternalistic and
allyship discourses, which implies that participants
perceived both types of discourses as pro-Roma.
Openly hostile, allyship for social change and
paternalistic discourses were significant predictors of
blatant stereotyping and undeserved benefits. In case
of the cultural difference scale, we observed an
opposite direction in all analyses. This suggests that
people with higher perceived cultural recognition of
Roma have lower acceptance of anti-Roma discourse,
both explicit and implicit. Moreover, the cultural
difference was most strongly predicted by allyship for
social change discourse, meaning that accepting
political statements that advocate for a pro-Roma
collective action is linked to recognizing the
importance of Roma cultural heritage. Overall, our
results indicate that the acceptance of different forms
of political discourse tends to predict the endorsement
of anti-Roma attitudes. Further research should
explore whether this effect persists when controlled for
the preference of specific political figures that use
such rhetoric. These findings show that political
rhetoric may play an important role in our social
cognition and how we perceive minorities.
Acknowledgments
This research is a part of project “Identifying
evidence-based methods to effectively combat
discrimination of the Roma in the changing political
climate of Europe” funded by the Justice Programme
of the European Union (2014-2022) under the grant
no. 808062- PolRom-REC-AG-2017/REC-RDIS-
DISC-AG-2017 and was partly supported by the
Slovak Research and Development Agency under the
contract no. APVV-14-0531.
References
Kende, A., Hadarics, M., & Lášticová, B. (2017).
Anti-Roma Attitudes as Expressions of Dominant
Social Norms in Eastern Europe. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 60, 17-27.
Kóczé, A., & Rövid, M. (2017). Roma and the politics
of double discourse in contemporary Europe,
Identities, 24(6), 684-700.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-
analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 90(5), 751-783.
88
.
Register autorov
A
Adamus,Magdalena ......................7
B
Bačová,Viera .........................137
Bašnáková,Jana ........................13
Ballová Mikušková, Eva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Beňušková, Ľubica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Brezina,Ivan ...........................17
Budinská,Ivana ........................15
C
Cimrová,Barbora .......................29
Č
Čavojová, Vladimíra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 17
Čeněk,Jiří .............................20
Černý,David ...........................22
Šašinka, Čeněk . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 103, 112, 114
Šašinková, Alžběta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112, 114
D
D.Poslon,Xenia ........................87
Dudeková,Katarína ......................7
F
Farkaš, Igor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 59, 93, 126
Fele,Benjamin ......................... 31
Ferber,Maike .........................100
Filip,Maroš ............................33
G
Gáliková,Silvia .........................37
Galasová, Miroslava . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Gergeľ,Peter ...........................29
H
Herman, Lukáš . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103, 128
Hoffmann, Matěj . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106, 118
Hudák,Marián ......................39,93
Hvorecký,Juraj .........................41
J
Jedlička,Peter .........................120
Juřík,Vojtěch ......................45,112
Jurkovič,Marek ........................ 17
Jursa,Andrej ...........................48
K
Kénesy Túnyiová, Mária . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Kasanický,Tomáš ......................15
Kelemenová,Alica ......................54
Kellner,Martin .........................59
Kende,Anna ...........................87
Kopčo, Norbert ........................100
Korečko, Štefan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 93
Krammer,Peter .........................61
Kuzmíková,Jana ........................61
Kvarda,Ondřej ........................103
Kvassay,Marcel ........................61
L
Lášticová,Barbara ......................87
Lúčny,Andrej ..........................70
Laback,Bernhard ......................100
Lacko,David ...........................63
Lokša,Peter ...........................100
M
Markoš,Anton .........................75
Markošová,Mária ......................48
N
Nagy,Marek ...........................79
P
Pecháč,Matej ..........................85
Popper, Miroslav ........................87
R
Rosipal,Roman ........................29
S
Sarto-Jackson, Isabella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Sivý,Martin ........................... 93
Smolík,Filip ...........................33
Sobota, Branislav . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 93
Sosík,Petr ............................131
Spišák,Ondrej ........................100
Stachoň, Zdeněk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103, 128
Straka,Zdeněk ........................106
Svoboda,Aleš .........................108
Š
Šebeňa, René ..........................100
Šejnová,Gabriela ......................116
Švarný,Petr ...........................118
T
Takáč,Martin ..........................31
Tomaška,Ľubomír ......................89
Tomko,Matúš .........................120
Trojčák,Dominik .......................93
Tuna,Matúš ...........................126
U
Ugwitz,Pavel ......................45,128
V
Valenta,Daniel ........................131
Valuš, Lenka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 35, 137
Vasiľ,Peter .............................93
Vavrečka,Michal ......................116
W
Wiedermann,Jiří ......................139
Z
Zelenka,Ján ...........................15
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.