协作抑制的作用机制：来自编码阶段的证据

协作抑制是指当人们在一个记忆小组中一起提取信息的时候,小组提取的信息总量比等量个体提取的信息总量要少。本研究采用经典的协作抑制研究范式和两次提取任务,考察编码方式和学习次数对协作提取任务的影响,进一步将考察协作抑制的产生机制作为总研究目的。结果表明,编码方式相同条件下出现协作抑制,而编码方式不同条件下协作抑制消失,显示协作抑制的出现与否依赖于认知条件的改变;无论是学习一次还是学习两次,在第一次小组提取中出现协作抑制,而在第二次个人提取中协作抑制消失,在使用困难学习材料时也得到同样的研究结果。研究结果支持协作抑制的提取策略破坏假说。     

协作抑制的认知机制

协作抑制是指当人们在一个记忆小组中一起提取信息的时候,小组提取的信息总量比等量个体提取的信息总量要少.心理学研究者致力于从认知角度对该现象进行解释,主要的理论解释有提取策略破坏假说和提取抑制假说.前者认为小组成员的提取结果对组内其他成员的信息组织策略产生了干扰,导致小组的提取成绩低.而后者认为小组内成员的提取结果会抑制其他成员对非提取项目的表征,降低小组协作提取能力,出现协作抑制.本文对两种理论假说的提出背景,基本观点,证据支持及现有争论进行了介绍,同时指出了未来的研究应关注于对两种机制的关键矛盾点进行区别性检验、对不同认知机制在不同条件下成立可靠性的检验以及通过对编码阶段进行操控来进一步考察协作抑制的认知机制.     

注意资源、学习方式与年龄因素对协作抑制的影响

本研究在前人研究的基础上,试图探讨不同编码因素对协作抑制效应的制约作用,从协作抑制角度为挖掘集体记忆的作用机制提供证据。实验1结果发现,集中注意条件下,出现协作抑制;分配注意条件下,协作抑制消失。说明学习时注意资源的投入程度,对协作抑制有影响。实验2结果发现不同的学习方式对协作抑制的影响在不同年龄被试身上表现不同。本研究将视角聚焦于编码因素,研究结果证实,协作抑制受到不同编码因素的制约,此外,本结果亦为协作抑制的提取策略破坏假说提供了新的证据。     

回忆任务对合作抑制和错误修剪的调节——情绪效价和编码水平的影响

前人在项目回忆条件的合作记忆研究中记录到明显的合作抑制和错误修剪,背景提取条件的相关研究尤显不足;同时,情绪效价和编码水平对两类现象调节的研究尚未涉及。为此,本文在两个实验中采用经典合作记忆研究范式,以不同情绪效价的词汇为实验材料并以词汇在学习阶段的呈现颜色为背景展开研究。实验1和实验2分别在学习阶段采用了深编码和浅编码任务,回忆阶段则均含项目回忆(回忆已学词汇)和背景提取(回忆词汇在学习阶段的呈现颜色)两种任务。采用深编码条件的实验1的结果显示,项目回忆比背景提取条件的合作抑制更强、错误修剪更弱,回忆任务与词汇情绪效价交互影响合作抑制强度;采用浅编码条件的实验2则发现错误修剪在两种任务间的差异不显著。两实验的联合分析显示,回忆任务与编码水平交互影响合作抑制和错误修剪强度。上述结果表明:回忆任务对合作抑制和错误修剪的调节支持双重加工模型;回忆任务与情绪效价对合作抑制强度的交互影响支持权衡说,且与双重加工模型相吻合;回忆任务与编码水平交互影响合作抑制和错误修剪强度。     

生存加工的编码和提取双重优势效应:ERP证据

生存加工比控制条件有更好的记忆表现,产生稳定的记忆优势,这就是记忆生存优势.已有研究多采用行为学实验验证了此现象的存在,但没有确定该优势发生在记忆的何种阶段.本研究采用ERP技术和“间接学习-再认”实验范式,比较被试在生存情境、迁徙情境和愉悦判断中对词汇编码和提取过程的记忆加工,结果发现:在500-700ms时间段,生存情境的相继记忆效应显著大于迁徙情境和愉悦判断:在400-600ms时间段,生存情境的新旧效应显著大于迁徙情境和愉悦判断.表明生存加工具有编码和提取双重优势.     

编码与提取干扰对内隐和外显记忆的非对称性影响

以往研究表明在外显记忆中,编码与提取加工存在着非对称性,但在内隐记忆中,二者的关系并不明确,因此实验采用“学习-再认”范式,考察在编码或提取中分别附加的干扰任务对词汇判断或再认产生的影响。结果证实编码与提取干扰对内隐或外显记忆都具有非对称性的影响,但又存在着差异,即编码干扰会导致随后外显记忆成绩显著减少,而提取干扰对其影响较小,相反,编码干扰对随后内隐测验中启动效应的影响较小,但提取干扰会破坏启动效应,从而为内隐记忆和外显记忆的分离提供了进一步的证据     

记忆编码策略对心境一致性记忆的调节作用

情绪对记忆的影响会受记忆编码策略的调节。本研究通过2个实验探讨编码策略对心境一致性记忆的调节作用。实验1和实验2均采用2（编码策略：提取练习策略、重复学习策略）×2（词性：消极词、中性词）的实验设计,分别探讨了不同记忆编码策略对普通大学生（实验1）和非临床抑郁大学生（实验2）心境一致性记忆的影响。结果发现：无论是被成功诱导出抑郁情绪的普通大学生,还是非临床抑郁倾向大学生,使用重复学习策略时回忆出的消极词均显著多于中性词,表现出显著的心境一致性记忆,而使用提取练习策略时回忆出的消极词和中性词没有显著性差异,未表现出心境一致性记忆。实验结果表明,记忆编码策略对心境一致性记忆具有调节作用,提取练习策略能够抑制心境一致性记忆。研究结果指明了心境一致性记忆的边界条件,并对非临床抑郁个体的学习与记忆具有重要的启示。     

记忆编码与提取的非对称关系

编码与提取是记忆的两个重要加工阶段, 虽然多数研究认为记忆的编码与提取过程是重叠的, 但也有一些研究结果证实了二者之间存在着差异性。这些研究主要从行为和神经成像两方面探讨编码与提取的非对称性关系, 并通过双加工模型及记忆两阶段神经生理学模型加以解释。综合以往研究, 编码与提取加工之间可能存在着多重复杂的关系。     

复述、提取抑制与有意遗忘的实验研究

有意遗忘是关于记忆研究的另一种实验范式,对于在实验中出现的要求遗忘的学习项目的记忆成绩差于要求记忆的项目的结果,目前主人存在着两种理论解释：基于编码的理论和基于提取抑制的理论。该实验运用单字提示方式,采用控制较为严密的补笔测验方法和加入所谓的“无关项”,对有意遗忘的心理过程进行进一步的探讨,实验表明：在单了提示方式下,被试在进行有意遗忘的过程中,既对记忆项进行了有意的复述又对遗忘项产生了提取抑制。     

内隐和外显记忆任务之间的实验性分离:编码程度和提取要求的作用

通过操纵编码程度(实验1)和提取要求(实验2)比较了内隐和外显记忆任务之间的操作变化.结果表明,编码时的语义和非语义加工之间存在着相互抑制的倾向;提取要求中更多意识成份的参与使先前情节中的语义成份得到更多的提取,而很少影响非语义成份的提取,编码程度和提取要求之间存在着相互作用.     

The effect of information distribution on collaborative inhibition

Two experiments examined collaborative memory for information that was studied by all group members (shared items) and information that was studied by only a subset of group members (unshared items). In both experiments significant collaborative inhibition (reduced output of the collaborative groups relative to the pooled output of individuals) was obtained for both shared and unshared information. In Experiment 1 the magnitude of collaborative inhibition was larger for unshared items than for shared items, possibly because unshared items were less likely to be acknowledged and thus incorporated into the groups’ recall. In Experiment 2 the magnitude of collaborative inhibition for shared and unshared information was equivalent once all participants were provided with the category name associated with the shared and unshared items. The results of the experiments are discussed in relation to the retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis of collaborative inhibition and the role of social process variables, such as acknowledgement, in influencing collaborative inhibition across situations involving memory of shared and unshared information.     

Collaborative memory and part-set cueing impairments: The role of executive depletion in modulating retrieval disruption

When people are exposed to a subset of previously studied list items they recall fewer of the remaining items compared to a condition where none of the studied items is provided during recall. This occurs both when the subset of items is provided by the experimenter (i.e., the part-set cueing deficit in individual recall) and when they are provided during the course of a collaborative discussion (i.e., the collaborative inhibition effect in group recall). Previous research has identified retrieval disruption as a common mechanism underlying both effects; however, less is known about the factors that may make individuals susceptible to such retrieval disruption. In the current studies we tested one candidate factor: executive control. Using an executive depletion paradigm we directly manipulated an individual's level of executive control during retrieval. Results revealed no direct role of executive depletion in modulating retrieval disruption. In contrast, executive control abilities were indirectly related to retrieval disruption through their influence at encoding. Together these results suggest that executive control des not directly affect retrieval disruption at the retrieval stage, and that the role of this putative mechanism may be limited to the encoding stage.     

Collaborative memory and part-set cueing impairments: the role of executive depletion in modulating retrieval disruption

When people are exposed to a subset of previously studied list items they recall fewer of the remaining items compared to a condition where none of the studied items is provided during recall. This occurs both when the subset of items is provided by the experimenter (i.e., the part-set cueing deficit in individual recall) and when they are provided during the course of a collaborative discussion (i.e., the collaborative inhibition effect in group recall). Previous research has identified retrieval disruption as a common mechanism underlying both effects; however, less is known about the factors that may make individuals susceptible to such retrieval disruption. In the current studies we tested one candidate factor: executive control. Using an executive depletion paradigm we directly manipulated an individual's level of executive control during retrieval. Results revealed no direct role of executive depletion in modulating retrieval disruption. In contrast, executive control abilities were indirectly related to retrieval disruption through their influence at encoding. Together these results suggest that executive control des not directly affect retrieval disruption at the retrieval stage, and that the role of this putative mechanism may be limited to the encoding stage.     

Mutual inhibition in collaborative recall: evidence for a retrieval-based account

In Experiment 1 participants gave 3 successive free recalls of items learned either individually or in pairwise collaboration. The first and third recalls were performed individually, the second alone or in collaboration. Collaborative recall led to an inhibitory effect after individual learning but not after collaborative learning, in which partners had similar retrieval strategies. Consistent with a retrieval locus for collaborative inhibition, non-recalled items reappeared in subsequent individual recall. Experiment 2 showed that collaborative inhibition was eliminated when a separate retrieval cue was given for each item. Experiments 2 and 3 also showed that when participants learned items in the same order, their retrieval strategies were more similar and they showed less collaborative inhibition. It is concluded that mutual interference in collaborative recall is due to the mutual disruption of individual retrieval strategies.     

The effect of information distribution on collaborative inhibition

Two experiments examined collaborative memory for information that was studied by all group members (shared items) and information that was studied by only a subset of group members (unshared items). In both experiments significant collaborative inhibition (reduced output of the collaborative groups relative to the pooled output of individuals) was obtained for both shared and unshared information. In Experiment 1 the magnitude of collaborative inhibition was larger for unshared items than for shared items, possibly because unshared items were less likely to be acknowledged and thus incorporated into the groups' recall. In Experiment 2 the magnitude of collaborative inhibition for shared and unshared information was equivalent once all participants were provided with the category name associated with the shared and unshared items. The results of the experiments are discussed in relation to the retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis of collaborative inhibition and the role of social process variables, such as acknowledgement, in influencing collaborative inhibition across situations involving memory of shared and unshared information.     

定向遗忘中提取抑制的机制：成功提取引起抑制

两个实验采用无关材料考察了字表方式下提取诱发遗忘解释定向遗忘中提取抑制的可能性。在实验中,学习完两个字表后,对字表2 进行不同次数（0、1、3次）的提取练习以考察是否会增强定向遗忘效应以及定向遗忘效应是否随着提取练习次数的增加而增强。实验一中,字表2提取练习是要求被试回忆字表2项目,不给予线索提示。在实验二中,采用词干补笔测验的形式对字表2进行提取练习,词干补笔测验保证了对字表2项目的成功提取。研究结果发现,只有在实验二中对字表2的成功提取练习增强了定向遗忘效应,从而表明成功提取可以解释定向遗忘中的提取抑制     

Exploring the relationship between retrieval disruption from collaboration and recall

When people recall together in a collaborative group they recall less than their potential. This phenomenon of collaborative inhibition is explained in terms of retrieval disruption. However, collaborative recall also re-exposes individuals to items recalled by others that they themselves might otherwise have forgotten. This re-exposure produces post-collaborative benefits in individual recall. The current study examined whether reduced retrieval disruption during group recall is related not only to less collaborative inhibition, but also to greater post-collaborative recall benefits. To test this we devised a paradigm to calculate the extent to which each individual experienced retrieval disruption during group recall. We also included two types of collaborative groups, one of which was expected to experience greater retrieval disruption than the other. Results suggest that the relationship between retrieval disruption and recall performance depends on the level at which retrieval disruption is measured. When retrieval disruption was assessed at the individual level, then minimising retrieval disruption was associated with higher recall (i.e., less collaborative inhibition and greater post-collaborative individual recall). However, when retrieval disruption was assessed at the group level there was no relationship with recall. Furthermore, the findings from this design suggest a role of cross-cueing in modulating group recall levels.