内隐觉察的行为和神经活动特征

变化盲视是指在某些条件下人们往往觉察不到视觉场景中实质性的改变。最近研究表明，变化盲视发生时个体虽然不能有意识地报告变化，但却能无意识地对变化刺激进行加工和反应，也就是产生了内隐觉察。内隐觉察能够引导注意、影响反应速度。与觉察和无觉察相比，内隐觉察的眼动模式具有鲜明的特征。与无变化试次相比，盲视试次可以观察到显著的脑电活动变化以及不同的脑区激活。内隐觉察的研究虽然取得了丰富的成果，但也还存在着一些需要明确和解决的问题，如左侧前额叶在内隐觉察中的作用，以及如何将没有视觉干扰的范式应用到变化觉察的神经活动测量中等。     

情绪感染的发生机制

原始性情绪感染理论认为, 情绪感染是一个“情绪觉察-无意识模仿-生理反馈-情绪体验”的过程, 情绪感染是一个由生理诱发情绪的过程。早在1884年, 詹姆士和兰格就提出了情绪外周学说, 同样描述了从身体变化到情绪变化的关系路径, 但没有描述从刺激事件到外周身体变化的发生机制。对情绪感染的发生机制的研究能揭示这一“自下而上”的情绪产生机制。研究选取有效大学生被试62名, 参与下列研究：(1) 在眼动实验中使用情绪图片作为感官情绪信息, 以考察觉察者的情绪觉察水平。(2) 在生物反馈实验中, 使用仿真课堂教学视频作为感官情绪信息, 以考察觉察者的无意识模仿水平和生理反馈水平。使用路径分析证实了情绪感染的路径机制, 在真实情境的诱发下, 这种通过生理唤醒而诱发情绪的机制是可能的。     

职前教师情绪觉察能力对情绪信息注意偏向的影响

采用修订的情绪觉察水平量表（LEAS）对315名职前教师进行调查，并从中筛选出高、低情绪觉察能力组被试各60人，分别完成情绪面孔Stroop任务（研究1）和情绪词Stroop任务（研究2）。（1）研究1的正确率上，中性面孔最高，愉快面孔次之，悲伤面孔最差；反应时上，悲伤面孔最长，愉快面孔次之，中性面孔最短；高分组仅在愉快和中性面孔上的反应时长于低分组；消极面孔的干扰效应高于积极面孔的干扰效应。（2）研究2的反应时上，消极词的反应时最长，显著长于中性和积极词；高分组仅在积极词和中性词上的反应时长于低分组，且高分组在积极词上的干扰效应高于低分组。研究结果表明与中性刺激相比，高低情绪觉察能力组均对情绪刺激产生了注意偏向，尤其是负性情绪刺激；与低情绪觉察能力组相比，高情绪觉察能力职前教师不仅对消极情绪信息产生注意偏向，还对积极情绪信息产生注意偏向。     

威胁性刺激蛇一定会被更快觉察吗?蛇与蜥蜴的对比

大量运用视觉搜索范式的研究发现,在进化过程中对人类生存具有威胁的蛇会被人们更快地觉察。但已有研究采用动物（蛇）植物（花）配对搜索的方式,而很少直接采用近似的动物配对搜索。本研究选取成人大学生被试,通过视觉搜索范式和眼动追踪,对比了蛇和同为爬行类动物、却不具有进化上威胁性的蜥蜴的视觉搜索过程,以探究蛇的威胁性和动物特征相似性在威胁性刺激注意偏向中的作用。实验1采用蛇和蜥蜴互为目标物和干扰物,发现相对于蛇,被试对蜥蜴的行为反应时更短;首次注视到达时间也更短。实验2-4分别采用黑白和线画刺激、恒定干扰物（花和青蛙）、使用自然背景材料对比蛇和蜥蜴的觉察,发现了一致的结果,即被试对蜥蜴的视觉搜索时间和行为反应时间都要快于蛇。在视觉搜索任务中当两种视觉刺激材料的属性接近时,蛇在进化上的威胁性不一定导致更快的搜索时间,而刺激物的视觉特征对目标物的觉察会产生重要的影响。     

RSVP范式下情绪刺激对聋人与听力正常人注意瞬脱影响的比较研究

采用RSVP范式,本研究以情绪刺激及双任务中两个目标刺激间的时间间隔(SOA)作为实验条件,从时间维度上探析了情绪刺激、SOA等因素对聋人与听力正常人注意瞬脱的影响。研究结果表明:(1)聋人存在较听力正常人更为显著的注意瞬脱现象;(2)较听力正常人而言,情绪刺激更易诱发聋人的注意瞬脱;(3)在改变T1情绪词的条件下,负性刺激对注意瞬脱的影响高于中性刺激及正性刺激,而正性刺激对注意瞬脱的影响可能与中性刺激无显著差异。     

情绪信息优先权的效价差异

采用两个实验考察不同效价的情绪信息在竞争注意资源的优先权上是否存在差异。结果表明:(1)作为干扰刺激呈现,只有负性干扰刺激诱发了Ei B,而且在lag-1条件时干扰作用最强;(2)作为靶刺激呈现,正、负性刺激在lag-1条件时对T2的干扰显著大于中性刺激。研究表明负性刺激的优先权很强;正性刺激在与任务目标相关时具有认知加工的优先权;情绪信息的优先权在刺激最初呈现时最强烈,然后迅速减弱。     

7～10岁自闭症谱系障碍儿童对情绪面孔的觉察与加工

为了考察自闭症谱系障碍(autism spectrum disorder,ASD)儿童对不同情绪面孔的觉察和加工情况,设计两个眼动实验任务,要求14名7～10岁ASD儿童和20名同年龄正常儿童观看图片。实验一采用将情绪面孔嵌入风景图片中引起语义不一致的刺激;实验二采用含有情绪面孔的无意义背景乱序图片刺激。结果发现:(1)ASD儿童对不同情绪面孔的觉察时间都显著长于正常儿童;(2)与正常儿童一样,ASD儿童表现出对恐惧面孔的注意偏向;(3)实验二中,ASD儿童对不同情绪面孔内部特征区的注意分配与正常儿童不同;正常儿童能注意最能展示该类情绪特征信息的区域,如恐惧的眼睛、愉快的嘴巴,而ASD儿童对三类情绪面孔特征区的注意分配方式相似;(4)两个实验条件下,ASD者对不同情绪面孔的觉察、加工模式与正常儿童相似。     

情绪诱发的视盲：一种独特的功能性视盲

功能性视盲是指由于某种原因导致正常的视觉系统出现视觉觉察丧失的现象, 例如变化知盲、注意瞬脱等都属于功能性视盲。情绪诱发的视盲指的是一个与任务无关的情绪性刺激的呈现吸引了注意以致个体无法对快速呈现的靶刺激有所觉察的现象。与注意瞬脱特别是情绪性注意瞬脱相比, 情绪诱发的视盲是以情绪刺激为干扰刺激, 考察情绪刺激如何以自下而上的方式吸引注意并干扰靶刺激的加工, 因此有着自己的特点：它没有lag1节省现象, 也没有像注意瞬脱那样严格的时间窗口限制, 不受干扰刺激与靶刺激物理特征相似程度的限制, 在心理机制上属于早期知觉阶段的加工竞争等等。情绪诱发的视盲表明情绪对注意在时间和空间两个维度上都有吸引或干扰作用。未来可以从考察神经机制、了解影响因素等多方面深化此领域的研究。     

错误意识判断对ADHD儿童错误觉察的影响特点

将GO/NO-GO任务范式和错误意识判断范式相结合,对21名ADHD儿童,27名正常儿童,在错误监控中的错误觉察水平进行考察,结果表明:1)ADHD儿童能够正常觉察到自己的错误反应;2)错误意识判断任务诱发出ADHD儿童的错误延迟效应,这种作用,既是因为该任务能够刺激ADHD儿童的有意觉察,又因为该任务无形中增加了GO/NO-GO任务中的刺激间隔时间。该结果表明,增加刺激间隔时间,可能会促使ADHD儿童改变错误后的反应策略,对错误反应进行错误调节,提高其错误监控水平。     

情绪智力的基础：情绪觉察的研究现状与展望

情绪觉察作为情绪智力的重要基础,指的是识别与描述自己和他人情绪的能力,对个体的心理健康,人际交往具有重要意义。为系统考察情绪觉察的研究现状,采用定性和定量相结合的方式回顾以往研究,即先采用文献计量学的方法定量分析该领域研究的概况,然后在此基础上,对研究的具体内容从概念界定、测量工具、神经基础、相关因素和干预研究五个方面作进一步系统梳理。最后,对以往研究进行了总结和展望,以期为今后研究提供借鉴。     

评价性条件反射效应：无条件刺激的呈现时长、效价强度与关联意识的作用

以真实商标图案为条件刺激, 情绪图片为无条件刺激, 探索无条件刺激呈现时长、效价强度与关联意识对评价性条件反射效应的影响。实验通过结合四图再认测验与基于项目分析, 对关联意识的作用进行了详细探讨。结果表明, 评价性条件反射效应只发生在无条件刺激长呈现水平与无条件刺激强效价水平; 评价性条件反射效应的产生需要基于被试的关联意识。关联意识在呈现时长(效价强度)与评价性条件反射效应间的中介作用不显著。结果不支持评价性条件反射的内隐错误归因机制及联想-命题评价模型的相关论断, 部分支持命题性解释模型。     

What do memory data tell us about the role of contingency awareness in evaluative conditioning?

Evaluative conditioning (EC) refers to the effect that pairings of a conditioned stimulus (CS) with a valenced unconditioned stimulus (US) lead to changes in the evaluation of the CS. There have been recurring debates about whether EC requires awareness of the contingency between CSs and USs during learning. We argue that the memory performance data obtained in the standard paradigm remain ambiguous about the role of contingency awareness during the encoding of CS–US pairings. First, memory performance data are unable to distinguish between encoding-related versus retrieval-related effects. Second, the relation between memory performance and evaluation is correlational, which limits conclusions about causal relations between memory performance and EC effects. These ambiguities imply that any possible data pattern can be interpreted in at least two different ways. It is concluded that a resolution of the current debate requires alternative approaches in which contingency awareness is experimentally manipulated during the encoding of CS–US pairings.     

Aware and (dis)liking: item-based analyses reveal that valence acquisition via evaluative conditioning emerges only when there is contingency awareness

Evaluative conditioning (EC) refers to changes in the liking of an affectively neutral stimulus (the conditioned stimulus, or CS) following the pairing of that stimulus with another stimulus of affective value (the unconditioned stimulus, or US). In 3 experiments, the authors assessed contingency awareness, that is, awareness of the CS-US associations, by relying on participants' responses to individual items rather than using a global method of assessment. They found that EC emerged on contingency aware CSs only. Of note, whether the CSs were evaluated explicitly (Experiments 1 and 2) or implicitly (Experiment 3) did not make a difference. This pattern supports the idea that awareness of the CS-US associations may be required for valence acquisition via EC.     

At the crossroads: Attention,contingency awareness,and evaluative conditioning

Evaluative conditioning (EC) refers to changes in the evaluation of a conditioned stimulus (CS) due to its repeated pairing with an unconditioned stimulus (US). One of the most debated topics in EC research is whether or not EC is dependent on contingency awareness. In this study, we go beyond this debate by examining whether contingency awareness mediates the impact of attentional resources and goal-directed attention on EC. Attentional resources were manipulated by presenting CSs and USs either within the same modality or in different modalities. Goal-directed attention was manipulated by asking participants to respond to the CSs or to the USs. Results indicate that the effect of goal-directed attention on EC is mediated by contingency awareness, whereas the effect of attentional resources on EC is not.     

Aversive conditioning under conditions of restricted awareness: Effects on spatial cueing

In the literature on aversive conditioning there is still debate on the role of awareness. According to some authors, affective learning can occur with or without contingency learning (dual-process model), whereas others argue that a single process produces both affective responses and contingency knowledge. Although many studies have investigated these models, the results to date are inconclusive. Based on a review of the literature, a new series of experiments was designed to examine aversive conditioning in the absence of contingency awareness. In the present study we examined the effects of subliminal aversive conditioning on a spatial cueing task. Awareness was stringently tested after conditioning. Three kinds of awareness were distinguished: contingency awareness (awareness of the CS?US contingencies, where CS is the conditioned stimulus, and US is the unconditioned stimulus), perceptual awareness (awareness of the perceptual differences between the CSs), and US expectancy (awareness of a threat feeling when confronted with the CS+, but not when confronted with the CS?). The results of three experiments demonstrated that responses on the spatial cueing task were modulated by subliminal aversive conditioning. Importantly, none of the participants was contingency aware or able to perceptually discriminate between the conditioned stimuli. However, in Experiment 3, only those participants showing some level of postconditioning expectancy awareness exhibited conditioning effects. These experiments suggest that subliminal aversive conditioning produces small but significant effects, which may be modulated by expectancy awareness.     

Evaluative conditioning may occur with and without contingency awareness

Evaluative conditioning (EC) is considered to play an important role in the attitude formation. One of the ongoing debates in this field concerns the impact of contingency awareness (i.e., awareness of the contingent relationship between conditioned and unconditioned stimulus, CS–US) on the EC occurrence. Despite the claims that EC does not require awareness of CS–US contingencies, the recent studies have claimed just the opposite. However, a number of methodological issues can be raised to undermine those claims. In two experiments, we tried to eliminate potential faults and sought to learn whether EC occurs with or without contingency awareness of either US identity or US valence. We report significant EC effects both with and without contingency awareness. These results provide support for the claim that the EC effects might be produced by independent mechanisms linked to awareness. We also argue that those mechanisms are differently captured by available measures of EC.     

Evaluative conditioning depends on higher order encoding processes

Evaluative conditioning (EC) is commonly conceived as stimulus-driven associative learning. Here, we show that internally generated encoding activities mediate EC effects: Neutral conditioned stimuli (CS) faces were paired with positive and negative unconditioned stimuli (US) faces. Depending on the encoding task (Is CS a friend vs. enemy of US?), Experiment 1 yielded either normal EC effects (CS adopting US valence) or a reversal. This pattern was conditional on the degree to which encoding judgements affirmed friend or enemy encoding schemes. Experiments 2a and 2b replicated these findings with more clearly valenced US faces and controlling for demand effects. Experiment 3 demonstrated unconditional encoding effects when participants generated friend or enemy relations between CS and US faces. Explicitly stated friend or enemy relations in Experiment 4 left EC effects unaffected. Together, these findings testify to the importance of higher order cognitive processes in conditioning, much in line with recent evidence on the crucial role of conditioning awareness.     

Revisiting the relation between contingency awareness and attention: Evaluative conditioning relies on a contingency focus

Although evaluative conditioning has occasionally been demonstrated in the absence of contingency awareness, many recent studies imply that its acquisition depends on the availability of attentional resources during conditioning. In previous experiments attention has typically been manipulated in a general way rather than looking at the particular focus of attention. The present study investigated the role of a focus on the CS–US contingency. Two separate distraction tasks were designed that either diverted attention from the stimuli or directed it to the stimuli while drawing attention away from the contingency between the stimuli. Both types of distraction were shown to eliminate evaluative conditioning. Significant evaluative conditioning was observed in a third group of participants who were required to attend the contingencies. A mediation analysis showed that the observed discrepancy in evaluative conditioning effects between groups was mediated by contingency awareness. The results imply that attention in terms of a stimulus focus is not sufficient for evaluative conditioning to occur. Rather, attention to the contingencies between stimuli appears to be crucial in evaluative conditioning, because it is supposed to foster the acquisition of contingency awareness.     

Both trace and delay conditioning of evaluative responses depend on contingency awareness

Whereas previous evaluative conditioning (EC) studies produced inconsistent results concerning the role of contingency knowledge, there are classical eye-blink conditioning studies suggesting that declarative processes are involved in trace conditioning but not in delay conditioning. In two EC experiments pairing neutral sounds (conditioned stimuli; CSs) with affective pictures (unconditioned stimuli; USs), we tested whether the type of conditioning procedure affects the relationship between awareness and EC. Auditory CSs and visual USs were either overlapping and co-terminating (Delay Conditioning Group), or they were separated by a short temporal gap (Trace Conditioning Group). In both groups, contingency awareness was manipulated by varying the duration at which the US was presented during conditioning. Furthermore, in addition to a post-conditioning measure of awareness, US detectability was measured concurrently during the learning phase in Experiment 2. US exposure duration affected both measures of awareness. The data of both experiments demonstrate that EC does not occur if the USs are presented at very brief durations, but reliable EC effects can be observed at longer US exposure durations. As there were no differences between trace and delay conditioning, the data suggest that contingency awareness plays a crucial role in trace and in delay conditioning of evaluative responses. These results challenge automatic association-formation accounts of EC, but they are in line with ‘single-process’ accounts assuming EC to be dependent on conscious declarative knowledge about CS–US contingencies.     

Contingency awareness in a symptom learning paradigm: necessary but not sufficient?

In previous studies, we found that bodily symptoms can be learned in a differential conditioning paradigm, using odors as conditioned stimuli (CSs) and CO2-enriched air as unconditioned stimulus (US). However, this only occurred when the odor CS had a negative valence (a selective conditioning effect), and tended to be more pronounced in persons scoring high for Negative Affectivity (NA). This paper considers the necessity and/or sufficiency of awareness of the CS-US contingency in three studies using this paradigm. The relation between contingency awareness and the selective conditioning effect, and between contingency awareness and NA was also considered. Both self reported symptoms and respiratory physiology served as dependent variables. A learning effect on symptoms was found only for participants aware of the CS-US contingency, but not all participants reporting contingency awareness showed a learning effect. No conditioning effects appeared on the physiological measures. Also contingency awareness did not account for the selective conditioning effect, and did not interact with NA. Overall, the necessity but insufficiency hypotheses can only be withhold for group data and not for individual data.