重复线索化和靶子注意定向对返回抑制的影响

在返回抑制范式下 ,利用线索—靶子模式进行了两个实验 ,以大学生为被试 ,以重复线索化次数来操纵线索化阶段的注意 ,以靶子的注意定向来操纵靶子加工阶段的注意 ,探讨注意对返回抑制的影响。实验一采用连续线索化方式 ,发现当靶子为自主性注意定向时 ,线索化次数对返回抑制有显著影响 ,线索化 3次时返回抑制值大于线索化 1次和 2次 ;当靶子为反射性注意定向时 ,线索化次数对返回抑制无影响。实验二采用交叉线索化方式 ,发现线索化次数对返回抑制的影响正好与实验一相反。两个实验一致表明 ,无论是线索化阶段的注意 ,还是靶子加工阶段的注意 ,均对返回抑制有显著影响 ;并且 ,在对返回抑制的影响上 ,二者存在显著交互作用。从而支持注意影响返回抑制的观点。该结果对返回抑制的机制研究有一定意义。     

空间选择性注意在上下视野间的转移

本实验研究空间选择性注意在上下视野间的转移及其是否受知觉空间的影响。实验采用Posner的位置线索化实验范式和两种深度线索背景,测量分辨任务的反应时(RTs)。实验发现:线索有效时的反应时比线索无效时的反应时短,而且线索对上视野刺激的反应时的影响较大。知觉空间中的深度线索对于注意在上下视野中转移没有显著影响。这些结果表明,空间选择性注意在上下视野转移存在不对称性,并且主要由物理空间决定。     

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。     

同时线索化条件下儿童返回抑制的容量

返回抑制是对先前注意过的目标再次做出反应的时候反应时延长的一种现象。返回抑制具有一定的生物学意义,忽略已经注意过的位置(或客体),使得有机体可以更加有效的注意新的内容。基于这一点,返回抑制现象应该可以在多个已经注意过的位置出现,这便是返回抑制的容量问题。在本研究中,采用同时呈现的线索化方式,考查8岁、10岁儿童在不同的实验任务——觉察任务和辨别任务——中的返回抑制容量。结果发现觉察任务中,10岁组儿童和8岁组儿童最多在5个线索化位置上出现返回抑制,但8岁年龄组的返回抑制容量缺乏稳定;辨别任务中,10岁年龄组只在一个位置上出现返回抑制,而8岁年龄组并没有明显返回抑制现象出现。年龄因素和任务类型对儿童返回抑制容量都产生了一定程度的影响。     

返回抑制和情绪信息注意偏向的竞争：来自眼动的证据

返回抑制与情绪注意偏向是研究视觉注意的两个视角,二者的优先性一直存在争议。本研究采用线索—靶子范式,在靶子位置呈现情绪图片,结合眼动技术,对整体反应时进行分解,探讨情绪信息与实验任务相关条件下的返回抑制和情绪注意偏向。结果发现：返回抑制效应出现;情绪信息与实验任务的相关性影响了个体对情绪信息早期的注意捕获;有效线索对情绪信息的加工抑制有限,情绪信息的加工表现出了自动化倾向。     

多个非线索化位置易代的一项实验研究

现在采用返回抑制范式所进行的空间非信息线索作用的研究,大多以非线索化位置反应时为参照,发现线索化位置的反应先易化后抑制。后者即返回抑制。本研究采用在返回抑制范式上增设中性线索化条件的方法,发现当靶子可以出现的位置为四个时,相对于中性线索化条件,非线索化位置反应快。这种非线索化位置的易化作用是独立存在的,它能使生物体尽快地对出现在多个非线索化位置的靶子作出反应。     

返回抑制的容量研究：回顾与展望

返回抑制是指当注意返回到先前注意过的位置或客体时人们的反应变慢的一种抑制现象。自20世纪90年代中期以来,越来越多的返回抑制研究开始关注最多能在多少个线索化位置上观测到返回抑制效应,即返回抑制的容量问题。文章着重从序列线索化和同时线索化两方面介绍了当前返回抑制容量研究的主要成果,总结了该领域研究的特点及存在的问题,并对未来研究方向予以展望     

多个非线索化位置易化的一项实验研究

现在采用返回抑制范式所进行的空间非信息线索作用的研究,大多以非线索化位置反应时为参照,发现线索化位置的反应先易化后抑制。后者即返回抑制。本研究采用在返回抑制范式上增设中性线索化条件的方法,发现当靶子可以出现的位置为四个时,相对于中性线索化条件,非线索化位置反应快。这种非线索化位置的易化作用是独立存在的,它能使生物体尽快地付出现在多个非线索化位置的靶子有出反应。     

线索的数量和联接性对返回抑制的影响

使用联接和离散的线索呈现方式比较了注意的易化效应和返回抑制的效果。实验一同时线索化3个外周位置,实验二同时线索化5个外周位置。结果表明：（1）在同时线索化3个位置的情境下,联接和离散这两种线索化方式均能产生返回抑制;（2）在同时线索化5个位置的情境下,联接条件仍能产生抑制效应,而离散条件没有产生。结果说明联接的方式让多个位置的线索被理解为一个线索,提示注意有“沿着物体弥散”的性质。     

三维空间深度位置上基于空间的返回抑制

采用虚拟现实技术,将Posner经典二维平面中的线索化范式应用到三维空间,通过两个实验操纵了注意沿着不同方向进行直线转移的方式,考察了注意在三维空间深度位置上进行定向/重定向而产生的晚期抑制效应(返回抑制,Inhibition of return)。结果发现：(1)无论注意沿着何种直线转移方式转移都在深度位置上发现了基于空间的返回抑制;(2)无效提示线索条件下,目标出现在三维空间近处空间时的反应显著快于目标出现在远处空间时的反应,导致了近远空间的返回抑制量存在差异。研究说明了返回抑制效应并不是“深度盲”。     

动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制 ——是客体抑制还是空间抑制的动态更新？

对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制进行了考察。实验1在双侧客体改变和不改变条件下考察了返回抑制效应,结果表明,在双侧客体改变条件下返回抑制仍然存在。实验2采用单侧客体变化技术对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制进行了测量,结果发现,在有效线索化条件下,单侧客体改变和不改变条件下对靶子的反应时没有显著差异（p > 0.90）。这些结果表明动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制的机制是空间抑制的动态更新,而不是客体表征受到抑制     

Unmasking the inhibition of return phenomenon

Conventional wisdom holds that a nonpredictive peripheral cue produces a biphasic response time (RT) pattern: early facilitation at the cued location, followed by an RT delay at that location. The latter effect is called inhibition of return (IOR). In two experiments, we report that IOR occurs at a cued location far earlier than was previously thought, and that it is distinct from attentional orienting. In Experiment 1, IOR was observed early (i.e., within 50 msec) at the cued location, when the cue predicted that a detection target would occur at another location. In Experiment 2, this early IOR effect was demonstrated to occur for target detection, but not for target identification. We conclude that previous failures to observe early IOR at a cued location may have been due to attention being directed to the cued location and thus “masking” IOR.     

Scene-based and object-centered inhibition of return: evidence for dual orienting mechanisms

We investigated whether inhibition of return (IOR) could be observed in location-based, scene-based, and object-centered frames of reference. IOR was found to move both with a separate cued object (scene-based) and with a location within a single rotating object (object-centered). Importantly, however, IOR was also associated with the environmental location cued when cuing was of a separate object (scene-based), whereas facilitation of the cued location was found when cuing was of a component within an object. These results suggest that location is of central importance to scene-based representations of separate objects, which appear to be encoded in viewer-centered coordinates, whereas environmental locus is of little relevance when attention orients within a single object. The results also provide further evidence for the coexistence of both excitation and inhibition associated with uninformative exogenous cues.     

Unmasking the inhibition of return phenomenon.

Conventional wisdom holds that a nonpredictive peripheral cue produces a biphasic response time (RT) pattern: early facilitation at the cued location, followed by an RT delay at that location. The latter effect is called inhibition of return (IOR). In two experiments, we report that IOR occurs at a cued location far earlier than was previously thought, and that it is distinct from attentional orienting. In Experiment 1, IOR was observed early (i.e., within 50 msec) at the cued location, when the cue predicted that a detection target would occur at another location. In Experiment 2, this early IOR effect was demonstrated to occur for target detection, but not for target identification. We conclude that previous failures to observe early IOR at a cued location may have been due to attention being directed to the cued location and thus "masking" IOR.     

工作记忆对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制的影响

采用双任务干扰范式探讨了工作记忆对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制的影响。三个实验分别考察了在言语、空间和视觉工作记忆负载条件下基于客体的返回抑制效应,结果发现只有在空间工作记忆负载条件下,动态范式中的返回抑制才受到损害。这表明空间工作记忆不但在静态范式中的IOR信息的维持和更新中起着重要的作用,在动态范式中的IOR信息的维持和更新中同样起着重要的作用。同时也为动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制的空间抑制动态更新说提供了新的证据     

Inhibition of return at multiple locations in visual search: When you see it and when you don't

Using a novel sequential task, Danziger, Kingstone, and Snyder (1998) provided conclusive evidence that inhibition of return (IOR) can co-occur at multiple non-contiguous locations. They argued that their findings depended crucially on the allocation of attention to cued locations. Specifically, they hypothesized that because subjects could not predict whether an onset event was a target or a non-target, all onset events had to be attended. As a result, non-targets were tagged with inhibition. The present study tested this hypothesis by manipulating whether target onset was predictable or not. In support of Danziger et al., three experiments revealed that multiple IOR was only observed when attention had to be directed to the cued locations. Interestingly, when attention did not need to be allocated to the cued locations, and multiple IOR was abolished, an IOR effect was still observed at the most recently cued location. Two possible accounts for this single IOR effect were presented for future investigation. One account attributes the effect to motor-based inhibition as hypothesized by Klein and Taylor (1994). The alternative account attributes the effect to weak attentional capture by a peripheral cue. Together the data support the view that multiple IOR is an attentional phenomenon and, as hypothesized by Tipper, Weaver, and Watson (1996), its presence or absence is largely under the control of the observer.     

返回抑制时程的三因素理论及其发展

综述了返回抑制(Inhibition of return,IOR)出现时程机制的三因素理论内容,支持该理论的实验证据,以及对理论的质疑和发展。该理论认为空间定向收益、出现检测缺失和空间选择收益三个因素共同决定了IOR出现的时程及机制。研究者通过操控任务加工水平或将实验范式相结合的方式对三因素理论提出了质疑和发展。许多关键问题如三个因素存在的认知神经科学证据、出现检测缺失和空间选择收益发挥作用的方式等是未来研究的重点和方向。     

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.