线索靶子关联和搜索策略对注意捕获的作用——来自意义线索的证据

采用线索化范式,操作性地建立线索和靶子间的关联,通过比较不同搜索策略任务下不同线索靶子关联条件间的捕获量考察关联水平及搜索策略对注意捕获的作用,并分析抽象的意义概念对空间注意分配的调节作用。结果发现(1)意义线索的注意捕获符合关联性的注意定向假说,只有符合当前注意控制定势的线索才具有捕获注意的能力;(2)知觉关联在调节无意注意定向上具有主导性,调节能力强,能将其他因素效应掩盖;语义关联单独作用时对无意注意定向有调节作用,但调节程度小,效应易被掩盖;(3)搜索策略虽然能够大大提高反应速度,但只有基于特征独子的搜索模式对无意注意定向有调节作用,且调节能力有限。研究再次认证了空间无意注意转移中注意控制定势的作用,同时指出抽象的概念加工能够根据当前的环境有效指导后续的选择和行为。     

线索靶子关联和搜索策略对注意捕获的作用

采用线索化范式, 通过实验任务设计线索与靶子不同的关联并鼓励被试采用不同的搜索策略, 探讨线索与靶子间的知觉关联、语义关联及特征独子检测模式、特征搜索模式对注意捕获的作用。通过线索无效条件和线索有效条件反应时之差判断每一条件下的捕获量, 并综合各条件的反应情况做出结论如下：(1)线索与靶子的知觉关联调控注意捕获, 其效应不受语义关联和搜索策略影响; (2)线索与靶子的语义关联只在排除知觉关联后调控注意捕获; (3)控制知觉关联和语义关联后, 特征搜索模式不影响注意捕获, 而特征独子检测模式对注意捕获有影响。这表明语义知识和知觉经验根据当前任务要求共同作用指导个体的视觉加工, 表现了人类加工系统的灵活性和可调节性。     

注意控制定势和线索类型在注意捕获中的作用

采用前线索范式, 通过3个实验考察了注意控制定势和线索类型在注意捕获中的作用。实验1要求被试搜索颜色奇异项目标或突现目标, 涉及较弱的注意控制定势, 结果表明, 突现线索在作为匹配线索和不匹配线索时都能捕获注意, 而颜色奇异项线索只有在作为匹配线索时才能捕获注意。实验2要求被试搜索具体特征的红色或白色目标, 使被试建立较强的特征搜索定势, 结果表明, 颜色奇异项线索和突现线索在作为匹配线索时都能捕获注意, 但是在不匹配条件下, 颜色奇异项线索被抑制了, 而突现线索不能捕获注意; 实验3采取go/no-go范式, 要求被试对红色目标进行反应, 对白色目标进行抑制, 并通过设置不同的线索-目标时间间隔来进一步考察注意捕获的机制, 结果表明, 在600 ms间隔下, no-go突现线索被抑制, 而对于go颜色奇异项线索来说, 随着时间间隔的增加, 注意捕获效应减少。结果与相倚捕获假说和抑制独立捕获假说不符, 支持注意转移假说：自上而下的注意控制定势通过把注意从和目标不匹配的特征位置转移发挥作用; 颜色奇异项线索和突现线索的注意捕获机制相同, 但是突现线索相对于颜色奇异项线索来说, 在与目标不匹配的条件下, 更容易捕获注意, 更难被抑制。     

自我面孔对空间注意的调控：来自Posner空间线索范式的证据

利用Posner的空间线索范式,三个实验意在探寻自我面孔作为特殊的刺激对空间注意的调控作用。在实验一中,自我或者熟悉的面孔作为内源性线索出现在视野中央,通过朝左或者朝右来提示目标出现的位置。在实验二（小图）和实验三（大图）中,自我或熟悉的面孔与目标同时呈现,作为与任务无关的刺激出现在视野的左侧或右侧。实验一的结果发现,与熟悉的面孔相比较,自我面孔产生了更大的提示效应。这意味着当自我面孔与任务相关时,对提示位置易化优于熟悉的面孔。与之相反的是,在实验二和实验三中,自我面孔和熟悉的面孔同样捕获目标位置的空间注意。然而,研究并没有发现自我面孔与熟悉面孔在捕获注意上的差异。这一结果也许暗示着在注意捕获的过程中,面孔效应足够大而掩盖了自我效应的出现。这些发现表明自我面孔之所以是具有特殊性的刺激不仅受感知过程的影响,还依赖于与任务的关系。     

类别注意控制定势在注意捕获中的加工机制

注意捕获是指注意定向的过程中刺激不自觉地捕获注意的现象。在复杂的视觉搜索任务中,类别注意控制定势(cACS)能够帮助我们将注意引导到与目标定义类别匹配的刺激上,并对其进行优先加工。探讨cACS在注意捕获中的加工机制,不仅能够扩展注意捕获领域的理论研究,还能对实际生活提供指导。通过文献梳理,从cACS的作用阶段、cACS的加工强度及cACS作用时的激活脑区三个方面总结了注意捕获中的cACS的加工机制。未来研究可以就抑制分心物的ACS、不同类型的cACS加工差异和人工类别ACS加工过程等进行探讨。     

注意捕获与自上而下的加工过程

注意捕获对揭示两种控制过程——自下而上的加工与自上而下的加工之间的关系有着重要的研究意义。在当前对注意捕获的研究中,主要存在两大类的实验范式：线索化范式与视觉搜索范式;涉及以下几个方面：刺激驱动的注意捕获与自上而下控制的关系;注意捕获是否涉及注意的空间转移;刺激的显著性对注意捕获的影响;实验范式对注意捕获的影响。总的来说,没有任何一种视觉刺激能绝对的独立于自上而下的控制之外来捕获注意,因此也可以这样认为,注意捕获被默认为是一种自动化的过程,但这个自动化的过程可以被内源性的调节所抑制或者易化。     

自上而下的注意控制定势在注意捕获中的作用

采用经典前线索范式的变式, 通过100%有效的提示考察了自上而下的注意控制定势在注意捕获中的作用。实验1要求被试在整个实验中只搜索一个固定颜色的目标, 但是通过在每个试次前对目标进行提示加强注意控制定势的强度。实验2通过在每个试次中变化要搜索的目标颜色使被试必须建立两个更强的注意控制定势。实验结果一致表明和目标颜色相匹配的线索捕获了注意, 而和目标颜色无关的线索被抑制; 实验2的捕获效应和抑制效应都显著大于实验1; 对无关冲突线索和无关中性线索的注意抑制效应没有差异, 抑制效应显著小于捕获效应。研究表明自上而下的注意控制定势通过把注意从和目标不匹配的特征位置转移发挥作用, 支持注意转移假说; 对匹配线索的捕获和对无关线索的抑制运用了同一加工系统, 抑制作为捕获的附加产品出现, 两者都可以作为注意捕获的指标。     

言语工作记忆内容在语义水平的注意捕获

采用工作记忆−视觉搜索双任务范式, 探讨不同呈现方式下与言语工作记忆内容语义水平匹配的刺激的注意捕获效应。结果发现：(1)视觉呈现下, 与言语工作记忆内容知觉和语义匹配的刺激均能捕获注意, 且在视觉搜索快速反应的阶段仍能捕获注意; (2)听觉呈现下, 与言语工作记忆内容语义匹配的刺激不能捕获注意, 反而被抑制, 但在视觉搜索快速反应的早期阶段却能捕获注意。研究表明, 基于视听呈现的言语工作记忆内容在语义水平对注意的引导作用可发生在注意搜索过程快速反应的早期阶段。而晚期阶段由于受到跨通道注意选择的抑制, 听觉呈现下的语义表征不能捕获注意, 而视觉呈现下的语义表征仍能捕获注意。     

注意捕获的另一扇窗户——无意视盲

观察者集中注意于某个物体或事件的时候,他们经常不能觉察到显著的、与众不同的物体,这种现象被称为“无意视盲”（Inattentional Blindness）。在无意视盲研究中,存在两类实验范式——静态无意视盲和动态无意视盲研究范式。首先,从刺激的感觉显著性、认知显著性、心理工作负荷、定势和期望以及加工能力等方面分析了影响无意视盲的因素;其次,对无意视盲和无意遗忘的争议以及无意视盲是“全或无”还是连续谱的争议也进行了总结;最后,从无意视盲角度出发探讨了内隐注意捕获和外显注意捕获之间的关系     

掩蔽线索引发的注意定向——易化和抑制

采用空间线索化范式,考察了阈下线索引发的外源性注意定向.实验一调控线索和掩蔽呈现时间设置最佳阈下参数;实验二和实验三分别采用检测和辨别任务,考察了多SOA下阈下线索引发的外源性空间注意定向.结果发现,无论在检测任务还是辨别任务中,阈下线索均可引发抑制效应,且完成辨别任务时得到了注意定向的双阶段效应——易化和抑制.这表明,在不需要意识参与下阈下线索可以引导注意,产生易化效应与抑制效应,后者的机制可能与返回抑制相同.     

意义关联的注意定向效应：基于空间位置的抑制和捕获

采用线索化范式, 通过3个实验建立线索和靶子的意义关联, 考察了意义性线索在不同空间位置的注意定向效应。结果表明, 在下视野出现抑制效应, 且位置越下抑制效应越显著; 在上视野出现捕获效应, 且位置越上捕获效应越显著; 同时注意定向效应的程度受引导线索性质的影响。这些结果说明：(1)客体间的意义关联能够引导视觉空间注意, 表现出不同空间位置的注意定向效应; (2)客体性质能够影响意义关联的注意定向, 表现为客体的生动性越高, 调节能力越强, 抽象性越高, 调节能力越弱; (3)意义关联的注意定向具有规律性变化, 表现为基于空间位置的抑制和捕获效应。     

Attentional capture by irrelevant emotional distractor faces is contingent on implicit attentional settings

Although expressions of facial emotion hold a special status in attention relative to other complex objects, whether they summon our attention automatically and against our intentions remains a debated issue. Studies supporting the strong view that attentional capture by facial expressions of emotion is entirely automatic reported that a unique (singleton) emotional face distractor interfered with search for a target that was also unique on a different dimension. Participants could therefore search for the odd-one out face to locate the target and attentional capture by irrelevant emotional faces might be contingent on the adoption of an implicit set for singletons. Here, confirming this hypothesis, an irrelevant emotional face captured attention when the target was the unique face with a discrepant orientation, both when this orientation was unpredictable and when it remained constant. By contrast, no such capture was observed when the target could not be found by monitoring displays for a discrepant face and participants had to search for a face with a specific orientation. Our findings show that attentional capture by emotional faces is not purely stimulus driven and thereby resolve the apparent inconsistency that prevails in the literature on the automaticity of attentional capture by emotional faces.     

Attentional capture by emotional faces is contingent on attentional control settings

Attentional capture by schematic emotional faces was investigated in two experiments using the flanker task devised by Eriksen and Eriksen (1974). In Experiment 1, participants were presented with a central target (a schematic face that was either positive or negative) flanked by two identical distractors, one on either side (schematic faces that were positive, negative, or neutral). The objective was to identify the central target as quickly as possible. The impact of the flankers depended on their emotional expression. Consistent with a threat advantage hypothesis (negative faces are processed faster and attract more processing resources), responses to positive faces were slower when these were flanked by (response incompatible) negative faces as compared with positive or neutral faces, whereas responses to negative faces were unaffected by the identity of the flankers. Experiment 2 was a standard flanker task with letter stimuli except that the task-neutral flankers were schematic faces that were either positive, negative, or emotionally neutral. In this case, in which faces and emotional expressions were to be ignored, performance seemed entirely unaffected by the faces. This result suggests that attentional capture by emotional faces is contingent on attentional control settings.     

Attentional capture by singletons is contingent on top-down control settings: Evidence from electrophysiological measures

The present study examined whether the capture of spatial attention is driven by stimulus salience (e.g., object uniqueness) or by a match to current attentional control settings (contingent capture). We measured the N2pc effect, a component of the event-related brain potential thought to reflect lateralized attentional allocation. On every trial, a noninformative cue display containing a colour singleton box was followed by a target display of letters. Participants searched for a target letter in a specified colour (in Experiments 1–3) or within a specified shape (in Experiment 4) while ignoring other stimuli. The key manipulation was whether the singleton cue contained the target-defining feature (e.g., a specific colour). Experiment 1 revealed signs of attention capture—a cue validity effect and an N2pc effect—only for singleton cues that contained the target-defining feature. This pattern persisted even when we increased the salience of the singleton box (Experiments 2 and 3). Irrelevant colour singletons also failed to produce a significant N2pc effect when the target was defined based on shape rather than colour (Experiment 4). We conclude that attention capture is strongly contingent on top-down attentional control settings, not bottom-up stimulus salience.     

Attention capture while switching search strategies: Evidence for a breakdown in top-down attentional control

Whereas capture experiments typically repeat a single task many times, real world cognition is characterized by frequent switching. Lien, Ruthruff, and Johnston (2010) reported that the attentional control system can rapidly and fully switch between different search settings (e.g., red to green), with no carryover and no intertrial priming. The present study examined whether this impressive flexibility is possible even when the switch is not between different features along the same dimension, but between mutually incompatible search modes. On each trial, participants were prompted to find and identify the letter that was in a specific colour (feature search mode) or was uniquely coloured (singleton search mode). Within each block, search mode was either pure or mixed; the mixed blocks contained a fixed AABB search sequence (singleton-singleton-feature-feature) in Experiment 1 and a random sequence in Experiment 2. The target display was preceded by a noninformative cue display containing a nontarget colour singleton. In pure feature search blocks, these irrelevant singleton cues were generally unable to capture attention, replicating previous findings of “contingent capture”. In mixed blocks, however, irrelevant colour singletons captured attention on feature search trials. This breakdown indicates a limitation in the sharpness of attentional control following mode switches, which might be common in the real world.     

Executive control is shared between sentence processing and digit maintenance: Evidence from a strictly timed dual-task paradigm

We investigated whether the comprehension of syntactically difficult sentences taxes the executive control component of working memory more than the comprehension of their easier counterparts. To that end, we tested the effect of sharing executive control between sentence comprehension and the maintenance of a digit load in two dual-task experiments with strictly controlled timing (Barrouillet, Bernardin, & Camos, 2004). Recall was worse after participants had processed one (Experiment 2) or two (Experiment 1) difficult sentences than after they had processed one or two easy sentences, respectively. This finding suggests that sentence processing and the maintenance of a digit load share executive control. Processing syntactically difficult sentences seems to occupy executive control for a longer time than processing their easy counterparts, thereby blocking refreshments of the memory traces of the digits so that these traces decay more and recall is worse. There was no effect of the size of the digit load on sentence-processing performance (Experiment 2), suggesting that sentence processing completely occupied executive control until processing was complete.