工作记忆内容对无意视盲的改善作用

无意视盲是注意捕获失败的一种现象.研究发现:工作记忆内容对视觉注意的引导可以影响视觉注意的捕获.本研究以此为基础探讨了工作记忆内容能否影响无意视盲.本研究采用了静态无意视盲典型范式,通过两个实验分别探讨了工作记忆对无意视盲的引导作用以及在不同知觉负荷下引导作用的自动性,进而研究工作记忆内容对无意视盲的改善作用.实验1结果表明,当非期望刺激与工作记忆内容属于同一类别时,对非期望刺激的觉察率显著高于当非期望刺激与工作记忆内容不属于同一类别的情况,说明在纯语义的水平上工作记忆内容可以引导视觉注意捕获,进而改善无意视盲.实验2发现,当知觉负荷由低到高变化时,非期望刺激与工作记忆内容同类属时,觉察率无显著变化,说明工作记忆内容对无意视盲引导不受知觉负荷的调节,是一种自动化的过程.     

从知觉负载理论来理解选择性注意

知觉负载理论被认为解决了选择性注意研究的早选择和晚选择观点之争。当前任务对注意资源的耗用程度决定了与任务无关的干扰刺激得到多少加工,从而导致在低知觉负载下,注意资源自动溢出去加工干扰刺激（晚选择）,而在高知觉负载下,注意资源被当前任务耗尽而无法加工干扰刺激（早选择）。知觉负载理论提出后,研究者进行了一系列研究。一部分工作专注于知觉负载对选择性注意的调节作用;另外一些工作则关注其他认知过程如何影响注意资源的分配,其中知觉负载与工作记忆负载的关系是当前关注重点。     

工作记忆负荷对无意注意的影响

通过探讨工作记忆负荷对无意注意的影响,考察工作记忆的认知控制功能对选择性注意的作用机制。为了避免工作记忆和选择注意的目标或者干扰子之间的知觉注意资源的竞争,采用言语工作记忆任务和视觉空间位置辨别任务,同时视觉干扰刺激采用被试无法识别的韩语。结果发现,在高负荷条件下,干扰效应显著;而在低和中负荷条件下,没有观察到干扰效应。说明在高负荷条件下,被试没有额外的资源来抑制干扰加工,从而出现了显著的干扰效应。由此,本研究支持负荷理论的观点：工作记忆在选择性注意中执行认知控制功能。     

数字空间联结的工作记忆机制

大量研究证实数字空间联结是一种稳定存在的表征形式。而关于数字空间联结的机制目前仍存在较大争论,本文在系统整理了大量有关长时记忆"心理数字线"难以解释的研究后,分析总结了工作记忆在数字空间联结中的重要作用。基于多个研究任务分析了工作记忆不同成分,即中央执行、语音环路和视空模板等,在数字空间联结中的重要作用,并系统介绍了对数字空间联结的工作记忆序列位置的解释。总之,数字空间联结的工作记忆机制仍有较多需要解决的问题,具有进一步探索的广泛空间。     

工作记忆与知觉负载对工作记忆表征引导注意的调节

本研究采用4个眼动实验探讨不同知觉负载条件下的视觉搜索任务中工作记忆负载对基于工作记忆表征的注意引导效应的影响。实验1和实验3采用低知觉负载的视觉搜索任务,结果在视觉工作记忆负载为1和2时观察到了显著的注意引导效应,但当负载增加到4时注意引导效应消失了;实验2和实验4采用高知觉负载的视觉搜索任务,结果发现注意引导效应在工作记忆负载增加到2时就已经消失了。上述结果表明:工作记忆负载和知觉负载都能够通过调控认知资源的方式来影响工作记忆表征对注意的引导,当认知资源充足时,工作记忆能够同时保持多个记忆表征对视觉注意的引导。     

工作记忆内容对视知觉的功能性影响

工作记忆和知觉是人类信息加工系统中的两个基本认知结构, 阐明两者之间的功能关系对于揭示人类信息加工的本质规律具有重要和根本的科学意义。工作记忆和知觉可以在多个方面发生交互作用, 其中工作记忆内容对视知觉的影响就是一个很重要的方面。文章在系统回顾工作记忆内容影响视知觉的相关研究的基础上, 提出工作记忆内容可以引导知觉选择、增强知觉表征和改变知觉经验, 指出工作记忆中的自上而下调控机制可能是工作记忆内容影响知觉的神经基础。     

视觉工作记忆负载类型对注意选择的影响

通过操纵Flanker任务相对于视觉工作记忆任务的呈现位置, 探讨在视觉工作记忆编码和保持阶段, 精度负载和容量负载对注意选择的影响。行为结果发现, Flanker任务呈现位置和视觉工作记忆负载类型影响注意选择; ERP结果发现, 在保持阶段, 当搜索目标和干扰项不一致时, 负载类型影响N2成分。研究表明, 在编码阶段, 视觉工作记忆负载主要通过占用更多知觉资源降低干扰效应, 支持知觉负载理论; 而在保持阶段, 当Flanker任务位于记忆项内部时, 两类负载在工作记忆表征过程中不同的神经活动导致投入到注意选择的认知控制资源不同, 可能是两类负载影响保持阶段注意选择的机制。     

个体认知方式与材料复杂性对视空间工作记忆的影响

采用计算机呈现的Corsi积木点击任务,探讨了不同认知方式个体对材料的路径、结构和数量复杂性不同的视空间工作记忆的广度。研究结果表明：（1）场独立性认知方式是影响视空间工作记忆广度的一个重要的个别差异变量,在路径复杂或呈现的材料结构随机的条件下,场独立者的视空间工作记忆广度明显高于场依存者;（2）材料呈现的路径、数量是影响视空间记忆广度的重要因素,在路径简单或数量少的情况下被试的视空间记忆广度要明显得高     

数学焦虑对工作记忆子系统及数学心算的影响分析

本研究从工作记忆容量的角度入手,探讨数学焦虑对工作记忆子系统及数学心算成绩的影响,并寻求三者之间关系的理论解释。本研究为3×2×2混合实验设计,即三组被试（高、中、低数学焦虑组）、工作记忆两个子系统（言语工作记忆和视空间工作记忆）和两种数学心算任务难度,并记录数学心算的反应时和正确率作为其成绩指标。结果表明在要求较高工作记忆容量的数学心算任务中,数学焦虑通过言语工作记忆和视空间工作记忆都会对数学心算成绩产生影响,其中视空间工作记忆是数学焦虑与复杂数学心算反应时之间的中介变量。     

基于情绪产生离身观和具身观的时距知觉情绪效应

时距知觉情绪效应指个体时距知觉因情绪影响而相对扭曲的现象。这一效应基于研究者所持“情绪观”的差异而被从不同视角进行理论解释。情绪离身观主张情绪产生基于对情绪刺激本身维度的加工。离身观下的时距知觉情绪效应可以用单一唤醒机制、单一注意机制、单一工作记忆衰减机制、唤醒和注意共同受唤醒度调节机制以及唤醒、注意及工作记忆受目标时间长度动态调节机制等进行解释,情绪具身观主张情绪产生是身体和情绪信息共同参与的结果。具身观下时距知觉情绪效应可以用具身化调节内部时钟速率、内感受性强度以及神经能量高低等机制进行解释。未来研究应注意：其一,基于离身情绪观需要首先明确“唤醒”、“注意”在具体研究的含义,操纵并观测“唤醒”和“注意”等变量主效应及其他变量（机体或环境变量）的调节效应。同时,厘清时距知觉情绪效应的判定标准,并为情绪刺激时距知觉分段综合假说提供佐证;其二,基于具身情绪观需要首先澄清内感受性强度、神经能量在具体研究中的内涵,然后,厘清时距知觉情绪效应产生机制的因果链,并为情绪刺激具身化调节时距知觉假说提供佐证。其三,需要在解释时距知觉情绪效应之前首先确立应该持何种情绪观的前提条件,然后再探索何种因素在...     

感数——它能告诉我们什么?

研究者在列举任务中发现,被试对3个以内项目的报告既快又准确（一般称之为“感数”）,而对3个以上项目的报告既慢又容易出错误（“计数”）,由此他们提出感数和计数属于两种不同性质的加工过程,一系列行为数据的反应时和正确率指标支持了这一假设。此外,最近的脑成像、电生理研究还发现,感数和计数在对注意的需求上同样存在着分离——感数无需注意,只有计数过程才需注意的参与。在此基础上,研究者从不同角度提出了一些解释感数现象的理论     

What dot clusters and bar graphs reveal: subitizing is fast counting and subtraction

In two studies, we found that dot enumeration tasks resulted in shallow-sloped response time (RT) functions for displays of 1-4 dots and steep-sloped functions for displays of 5-8 dots, replicating results implicating subitizing and counting processes for low and high ranges of dots, respectively. Extracting number from a specific type of bar graph within the same numerical range produced a shallow-sloped but scallop-shaped RT function. Factor analysis confirmed two independent subranges for dots, but all bar graph values defined a unitary factor. Significantly, factor scores and asymmetries both showed correlations of bar graph recognition to dot subitizing but not to dot counting, strongly suggesting that subitizing was used in both enumeration of low numbers of dots and bar graph recognition. According to these results, subitizing appears to be a nonverbal process operating flexibly in either additive or subtractive fashion on analog quantities having spatial extent, a conclusion consistent with a fast-counting model of subitizing but not with other models of the subitizing process.     

Subitizing speed,subitizing range,counting speed,the Stroop effect,and aging: capacity differences and speed equivalence

Thirty younger and 29 older adults were tested on reaction times for set size of a display of 1 to 9 digits. On half of the trials, the nominal value of the digits was equal to the size of the set displayed; on the other half, the value differed by 1 from the set size (Stroop interference). We found evidence for age differences in subitizing span (2.83 vs. 2.07). Once individual differences in subitizing range were taken into account, no age differences were found in the rate of either subitizing or counting, and no individual differences were apparent in subitizing speed. There was no age difference in the susceptibility to the Stroop effect. The results suggest that, with advancing age, the size of the focus of attention may shrink, but speed of access to elements in the focus of attention may remain constant.     

Subitizing and counting in typical and atypical development

Enumeration performance in standard dot counting paradigms was investigated for different age groups with typical and atypically poor development of arithmetic skills. Experiment 1 showed a high correspondence between response times and saccadic frequencies for four age groups with typical development. Age differences were more marked for the counting than the subitizing range. In Experiment 2 we found a discontinuity between subitizing and counting for dyscalculic children; however, their subitizing slopes were steeper than those of typically developing control groups, indicating a dysfunctional subitizing mechanism. Across both experiments a number of factors could be identified that affect enumeration in the subitizing and the counting range differentially. These differential patterns further support the assumption of two qualitatively different enumeration processes.     

小学生和成人不同注意条件下的感数与计数加工的比较研究

采用经典的空间线索范式,以成年人和小学二、四、六年级的学生为研究对象,考察了内、外源注意对感数和计数加工过程的影响。结果表明：（1）六年级学生和成人的感数范围为1-3或4,计数范围为4或5以上,二、四年级学生的感数范围在1-3,计数范围在4以上,支持感数和计数分离的观点。（2）对感数加工,成人和六年级学生均不受两种注意条件的影响,而对计数加工,外源性注意条件下的反应比内源性注意快;二年级学生1-6的数量加工受两种注意条件的影响,四年级学生1-5的加工不受两种注意条件的影响。（3）成人和小学生在感数和计数加工上都存在线索效应。以上结果说明：二-四年级是发展的关键期,随着年龄的增加,儿童逐渐有意识地有效利用内源和外源性线索进行数量加工,其注意指向性更明确;从发展的角度为选择注意加工理论提供了发展证据。     

Intentional subitizing: exploring the role of automaticity in enumeration

Subitizing is traditionally described as the rapid, preattentive and automatic enumeration of up to four items. Counting, by contrast, describes the enumeration of larger sets of items and requires slower serial shifts of attention. Although recent research has called into question the preattentive nature of subitizing, whether or not numerosities in the subitizing range can be automatically accessed is yet to be empirically tested. In the current study, participants searched for two pre-defined digits in a circular visual-search array. Distractor dots of various set sizes were placed at the centre of the array. Despite the relevance of the distractor numerosities to the target detection task, the distractors did not influence target detection, thereby suggesting that their numerosities were not automatically accessed in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, participants were explicitly instructed to enumerate the distractor dots. Here, congruent and incongruent distractor numerosities influenced the target detection task, thereby revealing that the distractor dots were capable of generating interference. Experiment 3 ensured that dots were attended by asking participants to detect the luminance of dots. Data confirmed that subitizing was not automatic. The present study also supported the alleged discontinuity between the subitizing and counting ranges because an examination of reaction time gradients in Experiment 2 found the counting gradient to be significantly steeper than the subitizing gradient. In sum, the results suggest that subitizing is a distinct but non-automatic style of enumeration.     

The role of pattern recognition in children's exact enumeration of small numbers

Enumeration can be accomplished by subitizing, counting, estimation, and combinations of these processes. We investigated whether the dissociation between subitizing and counting can be observed in 4‐ to 6‐year‐olds and studied whether the maximum number of elements that can be subitized changes with age. To detect a dissociation between subitizing and counting, it is tested whether task manipulations have different effects in the subitizing than in the counting range. Task manipulations concerned duration of presentation of elements (limited, unlimited) and configuration of elements (random, line, dice). In Study 1, forty‐nine 4‐ and 5‐year‐olds were tested with a computerized enumeration task. Study 2 concerned data from 4‐, 5‐, and 6‐year‐olds, collected with Math Garden, a computer‐adaptive application to practice math. Both task manipulations affected performance in the counting, but not the subitizing range, supporting the conclusion that children use two distinct enumeration processes in the two ranges. In all age groups, the maximum number of elements that could be subitized was three. The strong effect of configuration of elements suggests that subitizing might be based on a general ability of pattern recognition.     

Some primitive mechanisms of spatial attention

Our approach to studying the architecture of mind has been to look for certain extremely simple mechanisms which we have good reason to suspect must exist, and to confirm these empirically. We have been concerned primarily with certain low-level mechanisms in vision which allow the visual system to simultaneously index items at multiple spatial locations, and have developed a provisional model (called the FINST model) of these mechanisms. Among the studies we have carried out to support these ideas are ones showing that subjects can track multiple independent moving targets in a field of identical distractors, and that their ability to track these targets and detect changes occuring on them does not generalize to non-targets or to items lying inside the convex polygon that they form (so that a zoom lens of attention does not fit the data). We have used a visual search paradigm to show that (serial or parallel) search can be confined to a subset of indexed items and the layout of these items is of little importance. We have also carried out a large number of studies on the phenomenon known as subitizing and have shown that subitizing occurs only when items can be preattentively individuated and in those cases location precuing has little effect, compared with when counting occurs, which suggests that subitizing may be carried out by counting active indexes rather than items in the visual field. And finally we have run studies showing that a certain motion effect which is sensitive to attention can occur at multiple precued loci. We believe that taken as a whole the evidence is most parsimoniously accounted for in terms of the hypothesis that there is an early preattentive stage in vision where a small number of salient items in the visual field are indexed and thereby made readily accessible for a variety of visual tasks.     

More than superstition: differential effects of featural heterogeneity and change on subitizing and counting

This study investigates the effects of item heterogeneity (differences in color and shape) and moment-to-moment feature change as it relates to the issue of whether subitizing and counting involve different processes. Participants enumerated displays of up to eight items that were either homogeneous or heterogeneous. In situations where the heterogeneous displays always had approximately half of the items of one type and half of the other, heterogeneity significantly sped enumeration in the counting range (6-8 items) and significantly slowed enumeration in the subitizing range (1-3 items), a dissociation that suggests that subitizing and counting involve different operations. Moment-to-moment feature change had no effect on subitizing. However, feature change slowed counting, but only when participants were enumerating heterogeneous items that were half of one type and half of the other, as might be expected if participants were using differences in features to select items by type.     

Effects of distraction on visual enumeration in children and adults

Speeded enumeration of visual stimuli typically produces a bilinear function, with a shallow subitizing rate (<100 ms/item) up to 3-4 items (subitizing span) and a steeper counting rate (~300 ms/item) thereafter. FINST theory (L. M. Trick & Z. W. Pylyshyn, 1993, 1994) suggests that subitizing of targets is possible in the presence of distractors if attention is not required for target detection, but this has not been tested in children. The present study explored enumeration without distractors (Os alone) and with distractors (Os among Xs) in 35 children aged 6-11 years and 17 adults. Subitizing span increased significantly from childhood to adulthood, and counting rate increased significantly with age. Bilinear functions were significantly better than linear fits to the data for most children and adults both without distractors (97% and 100%, respectively) and with distractors (89% and 94%), consistent with their efficient visual search for a single O among multiple Xs. These findings are discussed in comparison with those from new modeling of earlier enumeration data from young and older adults, revealing striking asymmetries in subitizing with distractors between development and aging.