注意定势及时间不确定性对基于空间的返回抑制的影响

在两个实验中使用比例控制范式 ,研究了基于空间位置的注意定势及时间不确定性对检测任务中IOR出现时程的影响。实验 1以 75名本科生为被试 ,将SOA水平作为组间变量 ,从而消除了时间不确定性。结果发现 ,当被试形成“更依赖于提示位置”的注意定势时 ,IOR出现的时程延长。实验 2以 2 2名本科生为被试 ,将SOA作为组内变量 ,从而将时间不确定性引入实验任务。结果表明 ,存在时间不确定性时 ,IOR出现的时程恢复到正常水平。两个实验的结果表明 ,IOR的时程受到内源和外源性注意之间交互作用的影响 ,而注意定势和时间不确定性是决定IOR何时出现及持续时间的两个十分关键的因素。     

中央线索化对听觉障碍人群辨别任务返回抑制的影响

选取一组先天聋被试和与之匹配的听力正常被试,采用线索提示范式考察中央线索化对听觉障碍被试在辨别任务中基于位置返回抑制的影响。实验结果发现,在有中央线索化的任务实验中,听力正常和听觉障碍被试都出现了返回抑制,但是听觉障碍被试消失得比听力正常被试早。无中央线索化的辨别任务实验中,听力正常被试组仅在SOA=650ms时,听觉障碍被试没有发现返回抑制现象。结果表明听觉障碍被试辨别任务的返回抑制更易受中央线索化条件的影响,听障被试的空间注意调节机制更具策略性和有效性。     

返回抑制过程中情绪面孔加工优先：ERPs研究

返回抑制(IOR)是指注意过程中个体对已搜索过的位置进行抑制, 从而在随后该位置上出现目标时发生注意重新定向或反应变慢的过程。本研究使用ERPs技术, 采用线索-靶子范式, 考察了情绪目标辨别任务中IOR的发生过程及二者的神经机制。结果发现, 与无效线索相比, 有效线索下的P1波幅更小, N1波幅更大, 正性、负性面孔N170的波幅比中性面孔大。表明当要求被试做情绪辨别任务时, IOR与对情绪信息的反应之间发生了分离, 表现出情绪加工的优先。这说明IOR和情绪偏向是发生在两种不同神经通路上的适应机制, 也为进一步探究注意与情绪的关系问题提供了来自神经电生理学的证据。     

前、后注意网络的关系--返回抑制和Stroop干扰效应

将IOR范式与Stroop任务相结合,试图从探讨IOR与Stroop干扰效应之间的关系来推测AAN和PAN之间的关系以及IOR与注意之间的关系。结果表明,在控制条件下出现了显著的IOR,在Stroop条件下没有出现明显的IOR;提示和非提示位置上均出现了显著的Stroop干扰效应,但提示位置上的干扰量要显著低于非提示位置。从IOR和Stroop干扰效应之间的关系可推知,PAN和AAN是两个有交互影响的注意网络,AAN对PAN有压制作用,而PAN对。AAN也有一定的影响。最后,作者对返回抑制与注意问的关系进行了深入的讨论。     

空间选择性注意研究的新进展——返回抑制的研究

返回抑制(inhibitionofreturn,ior)是Posner等人在考查注意提示(attentionalcueing)效应时发现的。Posner(1980)首次使用“空间线索技术”研究注意的定向问题…。实验结果发现,如果在一个靶子呈现之前,注意被提示线索预先,有效地分配到靶子位置,那么检测此靶子的反应潜伏期缩短,即有一个收益;若相反,则会有一个损失。研究者们将其中的这种收益(即在有效预提示位置上对靶子检测的易化)称为“注意提示效应”。这种效应在注意的内部和外部定向中,以及内源和外源定向中具有普遍性。     

双通道分配性注意对视听觉返回抑制的影响

本研究基于线索-靶子范式, 操纵目标刺激类型(视觉、听觉、视听觉)与线索有效性(有效线索、中性条件、无效线索)两个自变量, 通过3个实验来考察双通道分配性注意对视听觉返回抑制(inhibition of return, IOR)的影响。实验1 (听觉刺激呈现在左/右侧)结果发现, 在双通道分配性注意条件下, 视觉目标产生显著IOR效应, 而视听觉目标没有产生IOR效应; 实验2 (听觉刺激呈现在左/右侧)与实验3 (听觉刺激呈现在中央)结果发现, 在视觉通道选择性注意条件下, 视觉与视听觉目标均产生显著IOR效应但二者无显著差异。结果表明：双通道分配性注意减弱视听觉IOR效应。     

安全标志词语的风险等级对注意效应的调节作用

安全标志是一种传递潜在风险的方式,在安全管理中有重要地位。安全标志词语在安全标志中应用广泛。本文从新的视角研究安全标志词语的有效性,应用心理学中的线索-靶范式研究安全标志词语的风险等级对目标的注意效应的影响。实验结果发现,词语的风险等级显著调节注意返回抑制（inhibition of return, IOR）效应, 高风险词语相对于中、低风险词语能够减弱IOR效应;但词语的风险等级对IOR的调节作用受到靶子位置的影响,其中,靶子出现在左侧时调节作用显著,而靶子出现在右侧时调节作用不显著,这是由于风险引发的负性情绪刺激处理的偏侧优势产生的。本文为安全标志有效性相关研究提供了新的研究视角和心理学实验证据。     

返回抑制研究的新进展

Ｐｏｓｎｅｒ和Ｃｏｈｅｎ( 1984 )发现对空间某一位置进行线索化 ,在线索开始呈现到靶子开始呈现的时间间隔 (ＳＯＡ)约等于或大于 30 0毫秒时 ,被试对线索化位置上靶子的反应时长于非线索化位置 ,出现抑制效应。他们称之为返回抑制 (ｉｎｈｉｂｉｔｉｏｎｏｆｒｅｔｕｒｎ ,简称ＩＯＲ)。返回抑制的实验范式是在外周位置线索化后 ,间隔一段时间 (在此间隔时间内可插入也可不插入中央注视点线索化 ) ,然后靶子呈现在线索化位置或者非线索化位置上。早期返回抑制的研究涉及其特性和机制等多方面的问题 ,近期则倾向于将返回抑制和其它实验范…     

不同SOA下视觉返回抑制对视听觉整合的调节作用

基于外源性线索-靶子范式, 采用2(线索-靶子间隔时间, stimulus onset asynchronies, SOA：400~600 ms、1000~1200 ms) × 3(目标刺激类型：视觉、听觉、视听觉) × 2(线索有效性：有效线索、无效线索)的被试内实验设计, 要求被试对目标刺激完成检测任务, 以考察视觉线索诱发的返回抑制(inhibition of return, IOR)对视听觉整合的调节作用, 从而为感知觉敏感度、空间不确定性及感觉通道间信号强度差异假说提供实验证据。结果发现：(1) 随SOA增长, 视觉IOR效应显著降低, 视听觉整合效应显著增强; (2) 短SOA (400~600 ms)时, 有效线索位置上的视听觉整合效应显著小于无效线索位置, 但长SOA (1000~1200 ms)时, 有效与无效线索位置上的视听觉整合效应并无显著差异。结果表明, 在不同SOA条件下, 视觉IOR对视听觉整合的调节作用产生变化, 当前结果支持感觉通道间信号强度差异假说。     

靶子-靶子任务中认知控制对返回抑制的反转

使用冲突色词作为外源性线索,通过3(任务类型)×2(线索有效性)×2(色词一致性)混合设计考察认知控制对返回抑制(IOR)的影响。结果:(1)线索-靶子任务(CT)和靶子-靶子任务(TT)均产生正值IOR,CT的IOR效应量(32ms)显著大于TT(12ms)。(2)线索有效性和任务类型交互作用显著。按键反应组IOR效应量(11.85ms)显著大于颜色反应组(-18.5ms)和词意反应组(-25.65ms)。证实冲突色词在CT任务中做为线索可产生IOR,这种范式上的新尝试同样适用于TT任务。在TT任务中对认知冲突的觉察和控制导致IOR效应反转,支持注意的非盲性机制。研究为主动操纵被试对线索的认知控制程度,考察复杂任务下实施认知控制对注意定向的影响提供了一条可行途径。     

Inhibition of return to social signals of fear

The present study examined whether inhibition of return (IOR) is modulated by the fear relevance of the cue. Experiment 1 found similar magnitude of IOR was produced by neutral and fear faces and luminance matched cues. To allow a more sensitive measure of endogenously directed attention, Experiment 2 removed a central reorienting cue and more precisely measured the time course of IOR. At stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) of 500, 1,000 and 1,500 ms, fear face and luminance matched cues resulted in similar IOR. These findings suggest that IOR is triggered by event onsets and disregards event value. Views of IOR as an adaptive "foraging facilitator," whereby attention is guided to promote optimal sampling of important environmental events, are discussed.     

Mechanisms of visuospatial orienting in deafness

The aim of this work was to explore the nature of elementary operations (engage, move, disengage, and filtering) of spatial attention in deaf experts in sign language. Good communication skills require deaf people to rapidly change attention to at least two separate spatial locations, the facial expression and the hand signs of the speaker. Overtraining imposed by sign language demands might have modified certain characteristics of the spatial attention operations. To test that, a spatial orienting task was used in two experiments. Experiment 1 showed that deaf subjects reoriented their attention to the target location faster than hearing subjects in invalid trials. Experiment 2 indicated that inhibition of return decays faster in deaf than in hearing people. These results suggest that deaf subjects can disengage their attention faster than hearing subjects, fostering search of relevant information in more spatial locations.     

Inhibition of return following instructions to remember and forget.

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed responding to a target that appears in the same rather than in a different location as a preceding peripheral onset cue. This study examined IOR as a function of whether the peripheral onset cue was a word that participants were directed to remember or forget. Using a modified item-method directed forgetting paradigm, words appeared one at a time to the left or right, followed by a remember or forget instruction. A target dot was then presented either in the same peripheral location as the preceding word or in a different location; participants made a speeded response to localize this target. Confirming compliance with the memory instructions, recall tests that alternated with blocks of IOR trials (Experiment 1) revealed few intrusions of to-be-forgotten words, and a final recognition test (Experiments 1 and 3) revealed more hits for to-be-remembered words than for to-be-forgotten words. Reaction times to the target dot revealed greater magnitude IOR following to-be-forgotten words than following to-be-remembered words (Experiments 1 and 3). Moreover, when compared to baseline IOR values (Experiment 2), it appeared that this difference resulted from a magnification of IOR following forget instructions and a reduction in IOR following remember instructions. These results demonstrate the usefulness of IOR as an index of memorial processes and suggest that attentional orienting may play a role in the remembering and forgetting of words presented in peripheral visual locations.     

颜色和形状工作记忆对非空间返回抑制效应的影响

为进一步考察非空间返回抑制效应是否受工作记忆内容的影响,分别采用颜色和形状工作记忆内容,通过两个实验考察了工作记忆对非空间返回抑制效应的影响。实验结果表明,在颜色和形状工作记忆条件下,均产生了颜色或形状返回抑制效应,并且颜色或形状返回抑制效应量之间均无显著差异,颜色和形状工作记忆内容只增加了判断靶刺激的反应时。研究结论对进一步认识工作记忆内容与非空间返回抑制效应之间的关系有重要参考价值。     

工作记忆内容对空间返回抑制的影响

工作记忆内容能够以相对自动化的方式引导视觉选择性注意。研究的目的在于考察工作记忆内容对空间返回抑制的影响。实验一要求被试在客体工作记忆保持阶段完成返回抑制任务,结果发现无论返回抑制任务目标是否与工作记忆内容匹配都出现了返回抑制效应。实验二要求被试在空间工作记忆保持阶段完成返回抑制任务,结果发现当目标落在记忆空间上时返回抑制效应消失。因此,空间返回抑制仅会受到基于空间工作记忆的视觉注意引导的影响。     

Inhibition of return with rapid serial shifts of attention: implications for memory and visual search

Horowitz and Wolfe (2001) suggested that inhibition of return (IOR) should not be observed in tasks that involve rapid deployments of attention. To examine this issue, five of six possible locations were sequentially cued with either short-duration peripheral cues (50 msec) or long-duration peripheral cues (500 msec). As was expected, IOR was observed in the first two experiments at every cued location with the long-duration cues, with the magnitude of IOR decreasing for earlier cued locations relative to later cued locations. In the short-cue condition, IOR was observed at only one cued location (the second to last). The pattern of results for the short-duration cues was found regardless of whether the fixation cue was of a short (Experiment 1) or a long (Experiment 2) duration. In Experiment 3, the final fixation cue was removed, and IOR was again observed at virtually all locations in both the short- and the long-cue conditions. These findings indicate that IOR can be observed at multiple locations when attention is shifted rapidly between locations.     

The effects of implicit attentional learning and habituation on inhibition of return

In two experiments, the effects of implicit attentional learning and habituation on inhibition of return (IOR) were assessed. Experiment 1 consisted of an informative variant of the spatial cuing paradigm (Posner, 1980), with the target appearing most often at the location next to the cue. Short-term as well as long-term learning of the regularities could be observed. This learning took place even though the participants were not able to verbalize the learned information, suggesting that the learning was implicit. By spatially separating the effects of implicit learning and IOR, we demonstrated that the magnitude of IOR slightly decreased because of long-term implicit orienting. In Experiment 2, a noninformative variant of the spatial cuing paradigm, IOR was still found to decrease over the course of the experiment. This suggests that habituation due to the mere repeated initiation of IOR also affects the magnitude of the IOR. This theory is supported by the finding that IOR recovered after short breaks in Experiment 2. However, habituation presumably only played a secondary role in Experiment 1. In sum, IOR was abolished by neither implicit attentional learning nor habituation. Here, the finding that IOR is not easily replaced by implicitly learned orienting clearly indicates that IOR is a powerful, low-level mechanism. We discuss implications of these results for the debate on the function of IOR.     

Deaf readers’ response to syntactic complexity: Evidence from self-paced reading

This study was designed to determine the feasibility of using self-paced reading methods to study deaf readers and to assess how deaf readers respond to two syntactic manipulations. Three groups of participants read the test sentences: deaf readers, hearing monolingual English readers, and hearing bilingual readers whose second language was English. In Experiment 1, the participants read sentences containing subject-relative or object-relative clauses. The test sentences contained semantic information that would influence online processing outcomes (Traxler, Morris, & Seely Journal of Memory and Language 47: 69–90, 2002; Traxler, Williams, Blozis, & Morris Journal of Memory and Language 53: 204–224, 2005). All of the participant groups had greater difficulty processing sentences containing object-relative clauses. This difficulty was reduced when helpful semantic cues were present. In Experiment 2, participants read active-voice and passive-voice sentences. The sentences were processed similarly by all three groups. Comprehension accuracy was higher in hearing readers than in deaf readers. Within deaf readers, native signers read the sentences faster and comprehended them to a higher degree than did nonnative signers. These results indicate that self-paced reading is a useful method for studying sentence interpretation among deaf readers.     

Deaf and hearing children: a comparison of peripheral vision development

This study investigated peripheral vision (at least 30° eccentric to fixation) development in profoundly deaf children without cochlear implantation, and compared this to age-matched hearing controls as well as to deaf and hearing adult data. Deaf and hearing children between the ages of 5 and 15 years were assessed using a new, specifically paediatric designed method of static perimetry. The deaf group (N = 25) were 14 females and 11 males, mean age 9.92 years (range 5-15 years). The hearing group (N = 64) were 34 females, 30 males, mean age 9.13 years (range 5-15 years). All participants had good visual acuity in both eyes (< 0.200 LogMAR). Accuracy of detection and reaction time to briefly presented LED stimuli of three light intensities, at eccentricities between 30° and 85° were measured while fixation was maintained to a central target. The study found reduced peripheral vision in deaf children between 5 and 10 years of age. Deaf children (aged 5-10 years) showed slower reaction times to all stimuli and reduced ability to detect and accurately report dim stimuli in the far periphery. Deaf children performed equally to hearing children aged 11-12 years. Deaf adolescents aged 13-15 years demonstrated faster reaction times to all peripheral stimuli in comparison to hearing controls. Adolescent results were consistent with deaf and hearing adult performances wherein deaf adults also showed significantly faster reaction times than hearing controls. Peripheral vision performance on this task was found to reach adult-like levels of maturity in deaf and hearing children, both in reaction time and accuracy of detection at the age of 11-12 years.