提取干扰对知觉和概念启动的影响

通过学习—测验范式,分别以词汇判断、语义分类任务为测验,探讨提取干扰对不同识别式记忆的影响差异。结果发现,实验1验证了识别式知觉内隐记忆的提取干扰效应,实验2发现识别式概念内隐记忆在提取干扰下也明显降低;两个实验启动量联合分析发现,相比无干扰条件,概念启动比知觉启动受到提取干扰的破坏更大。上述结果说明识别式内隐记忆的提取干扰具有普遍性,提取干扰产生了不同识别式内隐记忆之间的分离,识别式概念内隐记忆更容易受到提取干扰的影响。     

提取干扰对内隐记忆的影响

以往研究多认同内隐记忆不会受到干扰的影响,但主要集中于编码时的干扰不会影响随后的内隐记忆提取成绩,而对于提取时的干扰是否也不会影响内隐记忆成绩仍存在疑义。该文在实验1采用学习-测验范式,通过在提取阶段设置同时干扰任务进一步考察提取干扰与内隐记忆的关系,结果表明提取干扰下并未发现明显的启动效应,即提取干扰破坏了内隐记忆。为进一步探讨内隐记忆的提取干扰效应是否源于记忆与干扰刺激同时呈现所引起的知觉表征竞争,实验2改变了记忆与干扰刺激的呈现顺序,结果表明不论干扰刺激在记忆项目之前或之后呈现,启动效应均受到影响。相比之下,提取干扰对再认成绩的影响并不明显(实验3)。上述结果表明,内隐记忆的提取干扰效应是源于一般认知资源的竞争,在提取过程中任何能够产生认知资源竞争的变量设置都可能会削减内隐测验中的启动效应。     

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     

干扰刺激类型对内隐记忆提取干扰的调节

为了探讨内隐记忆提取干扰效应是否敏于注意资源的变化,该实验沿用前期经典的“学习-测验”范式,通过在提取阶段同时设置两种不同刺激类型的干扰任务:箭头干扰和汉字干扰,以此来探讨内隐记忆提取干扰效应的本质所在。结果发现,不同提取干扰条件对内隐记忆产生不同程度的影响,汉字干扰对内隐记忆的影响比箭头产生的干扰更大。结果表明,干扰刺激类型会调节内隐记忆提取干扰效应的大小,证实内隐记忆提取干扰敏于注意资源的变化。     

汉字的反知觉干扰效应:来自ERP的证据

采用"学习-测验"范式,在知觉辨认测验(内隐测验)和再认测验(外显测验)中,用事件相关电位探索汉字内隐、外显记忆的"知觉干扰效应"。结果:行为上,内隐记忆不受知觉干扰条件的影响;外显记忆受知觉干扰条件影响而显著降低;脑电上,内隐测验两种条件的ERP无显著差异;外显测验在550～600ms,知觉干扰条件比无干扰条件诱发了更负的ERP。实验在行为和脑电水平上都表现出内隐、外显记忆的分离,出现汉字的"反知觉干扰效应"。     

知觉启动效应及其脑机制的研究进展

启动效应是内隐记忆研究的主要对象,人们认为至少存在着两种类型的启动效应——知觉启动和概念启动。知觉启动被认为主要反应对刺激形式的优先加工,概念启动被认为主要反应对刺激意义的优先加工。通常被认为具有知觉特征的启动任务有：阈下呈现的单词识别,词干补笔,残词补笔,和图片命名等。     

共产主义信念对道德认知的影响及认知机制

基于五个实验研究联合使用单类内隐联想范式与概念启动范式,探讨了共产主义信念与道德认知的关系及其认知机制。结果显示:(1)共产主义信念与道德在概念层面具有相容性;(2)在阈上、阈下水平启动共产主义信念均能够显著促进道德概念判断;(3)共产主义信念促进道德判断的启动效应呈现累积趋势,符合证据累积模型,而在词汇决定任务下未出现概念的扩散激活效应,不符合扩散激活模型。系列研究表明,新时代中国特色社会主义背景下,共产主义信念与道德认知产生了显著地关联,共产主义信念启动能够促进道德判断,且共产主义信念促进道德判断的启动效应并不是发生在语义层面,而是知觉层面。     

概念内隐记忆中的注意促进效应

Swallow和Jiang (2010)最早发现, 编码时的目标探测会促进同时呈现的背景信息在随后记忆测验中的表现, 并将这一现象称为注意促进效应(Attentional Boost Effect, ABE)。随后研究发现这一现象并不会出现在概念内隐测验中, 由此提出目标探测主要促进的是背景信息的知觉加工, 而非语义加工。本研究通过3个实验, 操纵了对背景信息的编码加工类型(知觉加工或概念加工)。结果发现, 当与目标探测同时进行的是对背景信息的概念加工任务, 则ABE会出现在随后的概念内隐测验中。反之, 当对背景信息进行的是知觉加工任务时, 则ABE会出现在随后的知觉内隐测验而不是概念内隐测验中。这些结果表明, 目标探测既可能促进背景信息的知觉加工, 也可能促进背景信息的语义加工, 但只有在目标探测下背景信息的编码加工与随后内隐测验中所依赖的提取加工具有一致性, 才会产生ABE。     

知觉启动效应及其脑机制的研究进展

启动效应是内隐记忆研究的主要对象,人们认为至少存在着两种类型的启动效应——知觉启动和概念启动。知觉启动被认为主要反应对刺激形式的优先加工,概念启动被认为主要反应对刺激意义的优先加工。通常被认为具有知觉特征的启动任务有：阈下呈现的单词识别,词干补笔,残词补笔,和图片命名等。     

知觉和概念加工范式对内隐与外显记忆发展的影响

控制知觉材料的熟悉性和概念范例的典型性,以考察它们对内隐与外显记忆发展的影响。结果表明：（1）知觉内隐记忆的启动效应不存在年龄和熟悉性效应,而知觉外显记忆成绩则具有明显的年龄和熟悉性效应;（2）在概念内隐记忆任务上,典型范例的启动效应不存在年龄差异,非典型范例的启动效应则存在随年龄而增长的启动效应：无论是典型范例还是非典型范例的外显记忆成绩均随年龄增长而提高。     

内隐与外显记忆的编码与提取非对称性关系

实验采用“学习-测验”范式, 考察在编码或提取中分别附加的干扰任务对内隐测验或外显测验中获得的ERP新旧效应产生的影响。结果表明, 在内隐测验中, 编码干扰对随后测验中的ERP新旧效应没有产生影响, 而提取干扰却改变了300~500ms新旧效应的脑区位置, 破坏了500~700ms新旧效应; 与之相反, 在外显测验中, 编码干扰破坏了500~700ms新旧效应, 而提取干扰对这一效应没有产生影响, 即编码与提取干扰对内隐或外显测验中的ERP新旧效应都产生了非对称性的影响, 但又存在着差异, 从而为两种记忆在编码与提取加工的关系上存在的分离现象提供了神经生理方面的证据。     

任务转换中惯性激活对内隐记忆的影响：来自ERPs的证据

以往研究认为内隐记忆具有不受干扰影响的自动化加工特征,其证据主要来自于对内隐记忆编码过程的研究。最近已有多项研究发现,内隐记忆受提取过程中的干扰影响,但对这一现象的产生机制目前仍尚无定论。本研究根据任务转换相关理论,通过将go/no-go范式引入干扰任务,探讨提取过程中前置干扰对内隐记忆产生影响的内在机制。结果表明,前置的干扰任务产生惯性激活时,后续的内隐记忆任务会受到影响,即启动效应降低。对惯性激活进行抑制后,随后的内隐记忆则不受影响。并且,在内隐记忆相关的N400成分上得到了与行为数据一致的结果,即在no-go干扰下,获得的N400新旧效应,在go干扰下却未被发现。研究结果证明,提取干扰对内隐记忆的影响主要由干扰任务与内隐记忆任务对认知资源的竞争导致。     

The role of conscious memory in the category-production task

This study reported two experiments using the category-production task to examine the role of conscious memory in the conceptual indirect test of memory. Experiment 1 tested participants on both the category-production and recall tasks and found that, when participants were given ample time to do the production task, their production performance could be fully accounted for by their recall performance. On the other hand, priming was still found in the early production when intentional retrieval was unlikely to occur, indicating the influence of involuntary memory. Experiment 2 replicated the main finding of Experiment 1. More importantly, evidence from the exclusion instruction condition showed that there was no involuntary unconscious memory. These two experiments also demonstrated a dissociation of the delay effect between the category-production and recall tests, as well as a parallel levels-of-processing effect on these two tests. Results are discussed in terms of the nature of priming in the conceptual indirect test.     

Dissociating word stem completion and cued recall as a function of divided attention at retrieval

The aim of this study was to investigate the widely held, but largely untested, view that implicit memory (repetition priming) reflects an automatic form of retrieval. Specifically, in Experiment 1 we explored whether a secondary task (syllable monitoring), performed during retrieval, would disrupt performance on explicit (cued recall) and implicit (stem completion) memory tasks equally. Surprisingly, despite substantial memory and secondary costs to cued recall when performed with a syllable-monitoring task, the same manipulation had no effect on stem completion priming or on secondary task performance. In Experiment 2 we demonstrated that even when using a particularly demanding version of the stem completion task that incurred secondary task costs, the corresponding disruption to implicit memory performance was minimal. Collectively, the results are consistent with the view that implicit memory retrieval requires little or no processing capacity and is not seemingly susceptible to the effects of dividing attention at retrieval.     

Different involuntary mechanisms underlie priming and LOP effects in stem completion tests

The role of intentional retrieval, involuntary conscious memory, and lexical processing in priming and levels-of-processing (LOP) effects in stem completion tests was investigated in three experiments. First, Experiment 1 provided strong evidence against the intentional retrieval hypothesis for the implicit LOP effects. LOP effects in the explicit test were dependent on intertrial interval at test, whereas LOP effects in the implicit test were not. Second, support was provided for the involuntary conscious memory hypothesis. Implicit memory (priming) was associated with awareness in all three experiments and the implicit LOP effect was associated with awareness in two of the three experiments. Third, it was concluded that lexical processing per se played a limited role in both priming and implicit LOP effects. Although priming was sensitive to normative rates of production in Experiment 1 and the number of solutions in all three experiments, it was insensitive to frequency manipulations. The LOP effect was insensitive to number of solutions, normative rates of production, and frequency manipulations. In addition, LOP and priming effects were uncorrelated in the implicit memory tests. It was concluded that production processes (e.g., Gabrieli et al., 1999), rather than lexical processes, played a crucial role in stem completion priming. In contrast, the LOP effect was attributed to the involuntary interaction of episodic and perceptual memory.