类别与数量空间关系识别加工中的练习效应研究

本研究通过检测20名飞行员及其控制组的视觉空间关系识别中的认知加工水平,旨在探讨视觉空间关系识别中的类别关系和数量关系加工子系统所表现出的练习效应水平的高低。研究结果表明,在参与视觉空间关系判断的两个典型加工子系统中,负责数量(坐标)空间关系判断的加工子系统随系统训练而表现出功能增强的练习效应。相对而言,涉及类别空间关系判断的加工子系统则较少受到练习的影响。研究揭示,由于受大脑神经解剖结构特点以及加工任务性质的影响,练习效应在神经网络上的分布是不平衡的。相对于类别空间关系加工子系统,数量空间关系加工子系统更多地表现出了练习效应这一典型的认知神经加工特性。     

类别空间关系加工系统和数量空间关系加工系统的分离 ——来自多领域的研究证据

Kosslyn认为人类的空间关系加工系统分为类别空间关系加工子系统和数量空间关系加工子系统,这两个子系统不仅存在功能上的分离,并且存在大脑神经水平的分离,这种神经水平的分离表现为两种空间关系加工的大脑半球偏向,即类别空间关系加工的左半球偏向与数量空间关系加工的右半球偏向。对两种空间关系加工的研究,涉及的领域从低水平的空间知觉,至表象、记忆、语言、行动及物体识别等,涉及的研究方法包括半视野速示法,神经网络模拟,PET, fMRI, ERP, rTMS,脑损伤病人的研究及比较动物研究。综合现有研究,虽然大多数研究中得到的脑半球偏向为两种加工子系统在神经水平的分离提供了证据,但不同研究中脑半球偏向的获得是相当不稳定的,并且受到研究方法因素的影响。尽管造成神经水平的分离似乎与大脑左右半球对具有不同感受野特征的神经元输出的偏向有一定的关系,但这仍需要进一步的研究证据     

基于线索的视觉空间关系判断

融合视觉空间关系识别中的类别关系判断和数量（坐标）关系判断,通过4个实验探讨了影响视觉空间关系判断的线索性方面的因素。结果表明：视觉空间关系判断受角度影响不明显;单线索条件下刺激越靠近可视线索,判断绩效越好;多线索条件下在不显著延长反应时间的情况下有助于提高视觉空间关系判断的正确率;另外不均匀条件（边界线有一定斜率）不利于视觉空间关系的判断。     

注意瞬脱对视觉空间关系判断的影响

将RSVP范式和视觉空间关系研究范式相结合,以两个实验探讨了注意瞬脱对视觉空间关系判断的影响。结果发现,类别和数量空间关系判断之间出现了实验性分离:类别空间关系判断表现出较大的注意瞬脱效应,数量空间关系判断只有轻度注意瞬脱效应。这说明,类别和数量空间关系加工子系统具有不同信息加工特性:前者依赖实时注意资源,其编码过程更多涉及控制性加工;后者较少依赖实时注意资源,其编码过程更多涉及自动加工。另外,还运用注意瞬脱理论对结果进行了解释。     

运动轨迹和方向对视觉空间关系加工的影响

视觉空间关系分为类别与数量两种表征。研究通过控制起参照作用的运动客体消失状态与定位客体出现时间,分析客体运动信息对两种关系判断的影响。结果发现:运动信息在各间隔时间对类别任务影响呈序列排列,运动方向较轨迹信息有优势,轨迹较法线信息有优势;数量表征仅在0ms间隔受运动方向促进,在其他间隔下,三种位置上的判断均无差异。结果表明运动客体类别表征比数量表征更持久;且相对类别表征,数量判断作为精确距离表征不易受运动方向和轨迹信息影响。     

视觉空间关系识别中的认知加工特性

通过两个实验分别检测 2 0名飞行员和 10名老年被试及其相应控制组的视觉空间关系识别中的认知加工水平 ,旨在探讨视觉空间关系识别中的类别关系和数量关系加工子系统所表现出的认知特性。研究结果表明 ,在参与视觉空间关系判断的两个典型加工子系统中 ,负责数量 (坐标 )空间关系判断的加工子系统既可随系统训练而表现出功能增强的练习效应 ,也可随年老过程而发生功能衰减的年龄效应。相对而言 ,涉及类别空间关系判断的加工子系统则较少受到练习和年老化因素的影响。研究提示 ,由于受大脑神经解剖结构特点以及加工任务性质的影响 ,数量空间关系加工子系统更多地表现出了认知加工的可塑性和易变性特点 ,而类别空间关系加工子系统则表现出相对的稳定性或可塑性较低的认知特性     

基于参数表征的数量空间关系加工

空间关系的理解是概念表征向知觉表征的转化, 而空间关系的表达则是知觉表征向概念表征的转化。两种表征的转化以参照系为中介。视觉数量空间关系加工属于知觉表征向概念表征转化的空间关系表达过程。本研究通过控制方向、朝向及距离在启动与探测中的匹配关系, 采用三个实验探讨了数量空间关系加工中参照系各参数的表征及其相互作用。结果发现：(1) 数量空间关系加工中存在方向表征, 一定任务情境下存在朝向表征。(2) 距离匹配的促进效果只在启动刺激和探测刺激的方位关系处于参照系同轴时发生。这些结果进而说明, 数量空间关系加工中内隐地包含类别空间关系表征, 一定任务情境下, 可能存在垂直/水平的类别空间关系表征; 数量空间关系加工中的距离是联系于参照系轴的表征。     

类别关系判断中空间信息的内隐学习

采用“单-双任务”的研究范式探索视觉空间信息加工过程中是否存在内隐学习。通过比较“单-双”任务组被试在完成空间关系判断任务之后再认呈现的空间场景是否是曾在判断任务中经历过的反应数据来探讨类别空间关系判断中的内隐学习情况。研究结果证明：二维和三维情境中单任务组被试在类别空间关系判断过程中对空间背景信息的学习存在内隐学习, 且该学习过程还受到刺激情境特性的影响。     

仿真场景下类别空间关系判断中的注意分配

研究采用“提示-目标”的范式,并结合单、双任务的方法探讨仿真场景下类别空间关系判断中的空间注意分配。结果发现：提示影响类别空间关系判断效率,不同类型提示对类别空间关系判断的影响不同;类别空间关系判断还受到任务类型和判断类型的影响。由此得出以下结论：提示有助于注意资源的集中,提示越有效注意资源分配效率越高;注意分配受到第二任务要求的影响;决定注意分配策略的认知判断过程可能是持续存在的     

视觉表象产生的大脑半球专门化效应

采用Kosslyn单侧视野速示技术, 以英文字母图片为学习材料, 通过三个实验考察了视觉表象产生的大脑半球专门化效应。实验一提出在两种类型的视觉表象产生任务中, 有两种截然不同的加工起作用, 但却不能直接证实这两种不同加工机制的存在。实验二和实验三则进一步证实了两种表象产生任务具有不同的认知加工机制, 并表现出不同的大脑半球专门化效应。上述研究表明: 大脑两半球均参与产生视觉心理表象, 但分工不同, 并表现出不同的单侧化效应: 大脑左半球通过运用类别空间关系产生表象更有效, 大脑右半球运用数量空间关系产生表象更有效。结果进一步拓展了Kosslyn关于视觉空间关系加工的大脑半球专门化观点。     

The nature of categorical and coordinate spatial relation processing: An interference study

Spatial relation information can be encoded in two different ways: categorically, which is abstract, and coordinately, which is metric. Although categorical and coordinate spatial relation processing is commonly conceived as relying on spatial representations and spatial cognitive processes, some suggest that representations and cognitive processes involved in categorical spatial relation processing can be verbal as well as spatial. We assessed the extent to which categorical and coordinate spatial relation processing engages verbal and spatial representations and processes using a dual-task paradigm. Participants performed the classical dot-bar paradigm and simultaneously performed either a spatial tapping task, or an articulatory suppression task. When participants were requested to tap blocks in a given pattern (spatial tapping), their performance decreased in both the categorical and coordinate tasks compared to a control condition without interference. In contrast, articulatory suppression did not affect performance in either spatial relation task. A follow-up experiment indicated that this outcome could not be attributed to different levels of difficulty of the two interference tasks. These results provide strong evidence that both coordinate and categorical spatial relation processing relies mainly on spatial mechanisms. These findings have implications for theories on why categorical and coordinate spatial relations processing are lateralised in the brain.     

A Possible Connection between Categorical and Coordinate Spatial Relation Representations

Kosslyn (1987) theorized that the visual system uses two types of spatial relations. Categorical spatial relations represent a range of locations as an equivalence class, whereas coordinate spatial relations represent the precise distance between two objects. Data indicate a left hemisphere (LH) advantage for processing categorical spatial relations and a right hemisphere (RH) advantage for processing coordinate spatial relations. Although generally assumed to be independent processes, this article proposes a possible connection between categorical and coordinate spatial relations. Specifically, categorical spatial relations may be an initial stage in the formation of coordinate spatial relations. Three experiments tested the hypothesis that categorical information would benefit tasks that required coordinate judgments. Experiments 1 and 2 presented categorical information before participants made coordinate judgments and coordinate information before participants made categorical judgments. Categorical information sped the processing of a coordinate task under a range of experimental variables; however, coordinate information did not benefit categorical judgments. Experiment 3 used this priming paradigm to present stimuli in the left or right visual field. Although visual field differences were present in the third experiment, categorical information did not speed the processing of a coordinate task. The lack of priming effects in Experiment 3 may have been due to methodological changes. In general, support is provided that categorical spatial relations may act as an initial step in the formation of more precise distance representations, i.e., coordinate spatial relations.     

Egocentric metric representations in peripersonal space: A bridge between motor resources and spatial memory

Research on visuospatial memory has shown that egocentric (subject-to-object) and allocentric (object-to-object) reference frames are connected to categorical (non-metric) and coordinate (metric) spatial relations, and that motor resources are recruited especially when processing spatial information in peripersonal (within arm reaching) than extrapersonal (outside arm reaching) space. In order to perform our daily-life activities, these spatial components cooperate along a continuum from recognition-related (e.g., recognizing stimuli) to action-related (e.g., reaching stimuli) purposes. Therefore, it is possible that some types of spatial representations rely more on action/motor processes than others. Here, we explored the role of motor resources in the combinations of these visuospatial memory components. A motor interference paradigm was adopted in which participants had their arms bent behind their back or free during a spatial memory task. This task consisted in memorizing triads of objects and then verbally judging what was the object: (1) closest to/farthest from the participant (egocentric coordinate); (2) to the right/left of the participant (egocentric categorical); (3) closest to/farthest from a target object (allocentric coordinate); and (4) on the right/left of a target object (allocentric categorical). The triads appeared in participants' peripersonal (Experiment 1) or extrapersonal (Experiment 2) space. The results of Experiment 1 showed that motor interference selectively damaged egocentric-coordinate judgements but not the other spatial combinations. The results of Experiment 2 showed that the interference effect disappeared when the objects were in the extrapersonal space. A third follow-up study using a within-subject design confirmed the overall pattern of results. Our findings provide evidence that motor resources play an important role in the combination of coordinate spatial relations and egocentric representations in peripersonal space.     

Exogenous attention differentially modulates the processing of categorical and coordinate spatial relations

Carrasco and her colleagues have suggested that exogenous attention reduces the size of receptive fields at an attended location (Gobell & Carrasco, 2005; Yeshurun & Carrasco, 1998, 2000). Based on the hypothesis that categorical and coordinate spatial relations are more efficiently processed by smaller and larger receptive fields, respectively, we predicted that exogenous attention would be more beneficial to the processing of categorical spatial relations than coordinate spatial relations while it would disrupt the processing of coordinate spatial relations. To test these hypotheses, participants were tested using a variant of Posner's (1980) attentional cueing paradigm. Exogenous attention produced larger facilitative effects on categorical spatial processing than on coordinate spatial processing at a short cue-target stimulus onset asynchrony (100 ms, Experiment 1, N = 28), and this result was replicated regardless of cue size in Experiment 2 (N = 24). When the coordinate judgment was sufficiently difficult, exogenous attention disrupted the processing of coordinate spatial relations (Experiment 3, N = 28). These findings indicate that exogenous attention can differentially modulate the processing of categorical and coordinate spatial relations.     

The relationship between allocentric and egocentric frames of reference and categorical and coordinate spatial information processing

We report two experiments on the relationship between allocentric/egocentric frames of reference and categorical/coordinate spatial relations. Jager and Postma (2003) suggest two theoretical possibilities about their relationship: categorical judgements are better when combined with an allocentric reference frame and coordinate judgements with an egocentric reference frame (interaction hypothesis); allocentric/egocentric and categorical/coordinate form independent dimensions (independence hypothesis). Participants saw stimuli comprising two vertical bars (targets), one above and the other below a horizontal bar. They had to judge whether the targets appeared on the same side (categorical) or at the same distance (coordinate) with respect either to their body-midline (egocentric) or to the centre of the horizontal bar (allocentric). The results from Experiment 1 showed a facilitation in the allocentric and categorical conditions. In line with the independence hypothesis, no interaction effect emerged. To see whether the results were affected by the visual salience of the stimuli, in Experiment 2 the luminance of the horizontal bar was reduced. As a consequence, a significant interaction effect emerged indicating that categorical judgements were more accurate than coordinate ones, and especially so in the allocentric condition. Furthermore, egocentric judgements were as accurate as allocentric ones with a specific improvement when combined with coordinate spatial relations. The data from Experiment 2 showed that the visual salience of stimuli affected the relationship between allocentric/egocentric and categorical/coordinate dimensions. This suggests that the emergence of a selective interaction between the two dimensions may be modulated by the characteristics of the task.     

Judgments of relative position and distance on representations of spatial relations

This article examines Kosslyn's (1987) hypothesis of the unequal capacity of cerebral hemispheres to process categorical and coordinate spatial relations. Experiment 1 comprised 4 different tasks and failed to support this hypothesis in normal Ss. With the same stimulus patterns as in Kosslyn's study, the results failed to confirm cerebral asymmetry for representing the 2 types of spatial relations, in normal (Experiment 2) and commissurotomized (Experiment 3) Ss. In Experiment 4, a reduction in stimulus luminance produced a partial confirmation of the hypothesis as the right hemisphere proved more adept than the left hemisphere at operating on coordinate representations, whereas both were equally competent at processing categorical spatial-relation representations. The results suggest that the 2 hemispheres can operate on both types of spatial relations, but their respective efficiency depends on the quality of the representations to be processed.