颜色对基于时间的视觉选择的影响

旨在探讨颜色属性对基于时间的图形预览搜索的影响及其机制。实验采用视觉标记实验范式的变式考察三种颜色的图形刺激的预览收益。结果发现:搜索与旧干扰物相同颜色的靶子和搜索新异颜色刺激并未出现反应时的差异,而且,两者都快于搜索与新干扰物颜色相同的靶子。这说明,在图形刺激的预览搜索中,观察者没有主动抑制旧干扰物的颜色,而是主动加工新出现的刺激。还探讨了基于颜色标记的抑制机制和主动非抑制机制。     

中国和加拿大儿童对持续时间概念的掌握

本文是中国与加拿大两国儿童持续时间概念形成和发展的比较研究,并探讨不同文化背景对儿童掌握概念的影响.研究采用视觉与听觉两种呈现刺激方式。结果表明,在掌握持续时间概念的发展趋势、概念形成的年龄阶段及完成测验时所采用的判断策略方面,两国儿童表现出很大的一致性。但是在对两种呈现刺激方式和反应倾向中有很明显的差异。中国儿童在小学低年级听觉反应水平比视觉略低,到高小与初中阶段二者已趋一致.而加拿大儿童在各年级阶段视觉反应明显占优势。这种差异可能与生活环境有关。     

汉语发展性阅读障碍儿童的不同视野注意能力

以某城市小学三至五年级的学生为研究对象,筛选出发展性阅读障碍和同年龄对照组两组儿童,采用不同视角的刺激探测任务初步探查了汉语发展性阅读障碍儿童的不同视野注意能力及特点。研究使用圆点、数字和汉字三种刺激类型并设置了3°,12°,17°三种视角条件。结果发现,在数字和汉字条件下,汉语发展性阅读障碍儿童对刺激探测的反应时显著长于同年龄对照组儿童,说明在加工复杂刺激时,汉语发展性阅读障碍儿童可能存在知觉加工迟缓的缺陷。但是,汉语发展性阅读障碍儿童并没有表现出扩散的视觉空间注意模式,即更多地注意外侧视野的信息。汉语发展性阅读障碍儿童的视觉空间注意模式与正常儿童相似,表现为随着视角的增加,正确率降低,反应时延长。     

无关长时记忆表征能否引导视觉注意选择?

与任务相关的长时记忆表征在引导视觉注意选择的过程中扮演着重要的角色,它可以使人们在熟悉的视觉情境中快速搜索目标刺激,并偏离干扰刺激。但当长时记忆表征与任务无关时,还能否引导视觉注意选择?目前还不清楚。实验1采用眼动追踪技术直接比较无关工作记忆表征与无关长时记忆表征在视觉搜索阶段对视觉注意的捕获效应,行为反应时与首次注视点百分率的结果都发现,当无关工作记忆表征在视觉搜索中再次出现时能引导视觉注意偏向到与之匹配的干扰刺激,但无关长时记忆表征并没有表现出类似的注意引导效应;实验2探讨记忆表征由工作记忆系统转移到长时记忆系统的过程中对视觉注意的引导效应,结果发现,随着记忆表征的转移,注意引导效应消失了,实验3排除工作记忆表征的干扰后,依然没有发现无关长时记忆表征对注意的引导效应。以上结果表明,无关长时记忆表征并不能像工作记忆表征一样引导视觉注意选择,工作记忆表征和长时记忆表征对视觉注意的引导属于两个不同的认知过程。     

注意缺陷多动障碍儿童的表征搜索

为探索ADHD儿童在时间维度上的视觉选择性注意的基本机制,揭示其表征搜索能力是否存在缺陷,研究采用RSVP范式,通过实验材料(字母和数字)和呈现方式操作两种搜索方式:序列搜索和平行搜索,比较ADHD儿童(18名)和控制组儿童(17名)的成绩差异。结果发现:①在平行搜索和序列搜索条件下,ADHD儿童的成绩均低于正常控制组;②比较平行搜索和序列搜索条件下的成绩变化,以及由低难度到高难度上成绩的变化,无论是正确率还是反应时均发现ADHD儿童和正常儿童具有相同的成绩变化模式。结论认为ADHD儿童在视觉选择性注意的基本搜索机制上并不存在明显缺陷。     

客体隐含操作对儿童与成人视觉选择反应的影响

本研究探索客体隐含的操作性信息对儿童与成人在视觉选择反应任务中的影响.采用日常工具图片为视觉刺激,所有刺激均是正立的并且在水平方向上有两个朝向.被试的任务是尽可能快地判断工具的前端或者把手的朝向.实验一的结果表明,当工具把手朝右时,成人对把手朝向的判断要快于对前端朝向的判断;但儿童对这两个任务的反应无显著差别.实验二采用空间Stroop范式,进一步证明儿童在此实验中存在着非常显著的空间Stroop效应,但成人却没有.由此说明对工具的视觉观察自动化地增强了成人的手动操作行为,但这种效应对儿童并不显著.对工具操作功能的内隐再认显著地影响了视觉注意,成人偏向工具的把手,而儿童更偏向工具的前端.工具概念表征的建立与工具操作经验有关.     

任务难度对自闭症儿童视觉搜索优势显现的影响

探究自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)儿童视觉搜索优势的显现是否受任务难度影响及优势存在机理。本研究采集ASD和正常发育(TD)儿童完成不同难度等级视觉搜索任务的行为和眼动数据。结果发现：在高难度等级任务中ASD组的准确率显著高于TD组;ASD组在任务中对目标刺激的回视次数、对靶子和外周感兴趣区的注视时间显著少于TD组,且ASD组偏好注视刺激的右侧区域。结果表明ASD儿童视觉搜索优势显现受任务难度影响,且可能与其对干扰刺激增强的知觉能力有关。     

跨感觉通道任务中刺激驱动注意捕获的不对称性

通过两个实验探讨了来自不同感觉通道或不同空间方位的奇异刺激在视听搜索范式中的注意捕获。实验一使用定位任务探讨刺激驱动注意捕获中跨通道效应且及其不对称性, 结果发现, 当靶子在听觉通道时, 只有来自听觉同侧空间方位的奇异刺激成功的捕获了注意; 而来自视觉同侧空间和异侧空间的奇异刺激并没有捕获注意。实验二使用检测任务进一步探讨刺激驱动的注意捕获中的跨通道效应且具有不对称性, 结果发现, 来自同侧和异侧的听觉奇异刺激均捕获了注意, 但是视觉奇异刺激却不能捕获注意。研究表明, 视听搜索范式中的奇异刺激的注意捕获具有不对称性, 且存在着一种超感觉通道的注意资源。     

奖赏预期调节局部注意干扰效应

局部注意干扰效应(Localized attentional interference, LAI)是指在视觉搜索任务中同时搜索在空间上分离的两个目标时, 或者目标周围存在一个无关奇异项时, 这两个关键刺激相距较近时产生的干扰现象。本实验采用视觉搜索范式, 探讨了奖赏预期对局部注意干扰效应的影响。实验1采用双目标搜索任务, 要求被试判断搜索画面中两个奇异项刺激的形状是否相同。结果显示奖赏条件和无奖赏条件都表现出显著的距离主效应, 随着目标间距离增大, 被试的正确率提高, 反应时下降。同时, 在远距离时, 奖赏条件下的正确率高于无奖赏条件, 而在近距离时, 奖赏条件下的正确率反而低于无奖赏条件, 即, 奖赏条件下局部注意干扰效应反而增大。高动机状态增强了两个目标的表征, 反而不利于解决局部注意干扰效应。实验2采用单目标搜索任务, 要求被试判断特定目标的方位并忽略另一无关奇异项刺激。与实验1不同的是, 实验2仅在无奖赏条件下观察到显著的距离主效应, 即被试行为表现在远距离时更好; 而在奖赏条件下, 被试在近距离和远距离的表现一样好, 即没有局部注意干扰效应。这说明在奖赏预期条件, 个体可以有效抑制分心物刺激的干扰, 将注意集中于目标刺激的加工, 从而对局部注意干扰效应产生调节。整个研究表明, 奖赏整体上能够提高对任务相关刺激的表征, 并抑制任务无关刺激, 虽然这并不总是能够提高任务表现。     

网络成瘾倾向者在视觉工作记忆引导下的注意捕获

采用工作记忆任务和视觉搜索任务相结合的双任务范式, 探讨网络成瘾倾向者在视觉工作记忆引导下的注意捕获。实验1考察了单一分心刺激视场中分心刺激的性质对网络成瘾倾向者选择性注意的影响, 实验2通过控制匹配试验出现的概率来诱发不同的抑制动机, 探讨多分心刺激视场中两种抑制动机下网络成瘾倾向者的注意表现。结果发现：(1)无论在单一分心刺激还是多分心刺激视场中, 网络成瘾倾向被试的目标搜索反应时均显著短于正常组被试, 且两组的搜索正确率没有差异。(2)在单一分心刺激视场中, 无论是与工作记忆项目匹配还是不匹配的分心刺激都会捕获正常组被试的注意, 但不会捕获网络成瘾倾向被试的注意。(3)在多分心刺激视场中, 当抑制动机水平较低时, 两组被试均对匹配分心物产生注意捕获效应, 且网络成瘾倾向被试受工作记忆引导的注意捕获效应小于正常组被试; 当抑制动机较高时, 两组被试均对匹配分心物产生注意抑制效应, 且没有差异。研究结果表明, 面对非网络相关视觉刺激时, 网络成瘾倾向者受工作记忆引导的注意捕获效应小于正常组, 并表现出了知觉加工上的优势。     

大脑两半球与整体和局部性质的选择性加工

研究大脑两半球在加工整体和局部性质中的优势以及两半球能否同时分别选择两个复合刺激的整体和局部性质。实验中把一个复合字母随机呈现在左视野或右视野,或者把两个复合字母同时分别呈现在左视野和右视野。实验一发现,在单侧呈现条件下,被试检测左右视野的整体或局部靶目标的反应时没有显著差别,但在双侧同时呈现条件下,检测右视野局部靶目标比检测左视野局部靶目标时的反应时短。实验二要求被试检测同时呈现在左右视野的整体或局部靶目标,发现当两个视野的靶目标处于同一水平时(整体或局部)反应时较短,两个视野的靶目标处于不同水平时(一侧处于整体水平而另一侧处于局部水平)反应时较长。这些结果提示,当两个复合刺激同时呈现在左右视野时,大脑左半球在选择性加工局部性质时具有优势;左右两半球更容易选择两个复合刺激同一个水平的性质,分别选择两个复合刺激不同水平的性质比较困难。     

Right hemisphere specialization for color detection

Three experiments were carried out to investigate hemispheric asymmetry in color processing among normal participants. In Experiment 1, it was shown that the reaction times (RTs) of the dominant and non-dominant hands assessed using a visual target presented at the central visual field, were not significantly different. In Experiment 2, RTs of ipsilateral hands to lateralized chromatic stimuli revealed that the processing time was 17 ms shorter in the right hemisphere (RH) than that in the left hemisphere among the right-handed participants, whereas no significant difference was found among the left-handed participants. On the other hand, RTs to lateralized achromatic stimuli showed no such asymmetry among both the right- and left-handed participants (Experiment 3). These findings strongly suggest RH superiority for detection of color among right-handed individuals.     

An effect of spatial-temporal association of response codes: understanding the cognitive representations of time

The present study addresses the question of how such an abstract concept as time is represented by our cognitive system. Specifically, the aim was to assess whether temporal information is cognitively represented through left-to-right spatial coordinates, as already shown for other ordered sequences (e.g., numbers). In Experiment 1, the task-relevant information was the temporal duration of a cross. RTs were shorter when short and long durations had to be responded to with left and right hands, respectively, than with the opposite stimulus-response mapping. The possible explanation that the foreperiod effect (i.e., shorter RTs for longer durations) is greater with right than with left hand responses is discarded by results of Experiment 2, in which right and left hand responses alternated block-wise in a variable foreperiod paradigm. Other explanations concerning manual or hemispheric asymmetries may be excluded based on the results of control experiments, which show that the compatibility effect between response side and cross duration occurs for accuracy when responses are given with crossed hands (Experiment 3), and for RTs when responses are given within one hand (Experiment 4). This pattern suggests that elapsing time, similarly to other ordered information, is represented in some circumstances through an internal spatial reference frame, in a way that may influence motor performance. Finally, in Experiment 5, the temporal duration was parametrically varied using different values for each response category (i.e., 3 short and 3 long durations). The compatibility effect between hand and duration was replicated, but followed a rectangular function of the duration. The shape of this function is discussed in relation to the specific task demands.     

Binary choice reaction time as a criterion of motor equivalence: Further evidence

In a previous study Heuer (1982) found shorter binary choice RTs for finger movements of the right hand when the alternative movement with the left hand was of the same form that in case of different forms. Contrary to expectation there was no corresponding effect if the fingers used were the same of different ones. This result was replicated for right hand RTs as well as left hand RTs and for male and female subjects, using a different experimental design. It is discussed in respect to different preparatory processes in the foreperiod.     

Upper and lower visual field differences in categorical and coordinate judgments

Kosslyn (1987) theorized that the left and right hemispheres differ in processing categorical and coordinate spatial relationships, respectively. Previc (1990) hypothesized that the upper and lower visual fields are functionally specialized for visual search and visuomotor manipulations, respectively. Conceptual similarities between these two theories suggested possible upper visual field advantages for categorical judgments and lower visual field advantages for coordinate judgments. In the present two experiments, subjects made either categorical or coordinate judgments to stimuli in the upper left, upper right, lower left, or lower right visual fields. The first experiment manipulated categorical/coordinate judgments as a between-subjects variable. The second experiment manipulated categorical/coordinate judgments as a within-subjects variable. In the first experiment, reaction times (RTs) for categorical judgments were equal in all visual fields except the lower left, in which RTs were slower. For coordinate judgments, RTs were equal in all visual fields except the lower left, in which RTs were faster. In general, these effects were replicated in the second experiment. However, there appeared to be consequences associated with manipulating the categorical/coordinate variable in a within-subjects fashion. The requirements of visual search versus visuomotor processes appear to map onto the nature of categorical versus coordinate processing, respectively, suggesting possible upper-lower visual field differences in categorical versus coordinate processing.     

Programming response duration in a precueing reaction time paradigm

To determine whether the duration of certain motor activities can be a prespecified dimension of the motor program, we studied the duration of a motor response and the hand to be used, in a precueing paradigm. The response to be produced (a press on a push-button) was either short or long and involved either the right or the left hand. In Experiment 1, 200 and 700 ms (Block 1) or 700 and 2,500 ms (Block 2) were respectively chosen as short and long durations. No RT difference between short and long appeared when response duration was certain. When response duration was uncertain, RTs were longer for long than for short responses. In addition, the RTs that preceded the 700-ms response were longer in Block 1 than in Block 2. These results suggest that response duration can be programmed up to 2,500 ms and that the relative duration of a response in a given range is more relevant for programming mechanisms than its absolute duration. In Experiment 2, uncertainty concerning the response was maintained constant in a similar precueing paradigm, in which only 700-and 2,500-ms response durations were considered. The RTs preceding a long duration were shorter when duration was certain than when neither side nor duration was certain. No RT difference appeared before the short response duration. This seems to confirm that duration can be programmed up to 2,500 ms and also suggests that the program elaborated for the short duration constitutes a common basis for short and long responses: When duration is uncertain, programming a long duration requires just an additional operation to complete the program corresponding to the short duration, which has already been selected by default.     

Lateralized effects of target location on reaction times when preparing for manual aiming at a visual target

To elucidate the temporal characteristics of information processing for motor action differing in complexity in relation to both perceptual and cognitive information processing, we investigated whether the reaction times (RTs) to a visual target would be affected by task complexity (finger lifting or manual aiming), pre-cueing (with a pre-cue or without a pre-cue), or target location (five horizontal positions). Using the right hand, seven right-handed subjects performed two tasks, finger lifting and manual aiming at a target, with or without a pre-cue. The pre-cue announced the location of the target to be presented. An ANOVA showed significant interactions between task and location and between pre-cue and location with no significant interaction between task and pre-cue, indicating that the task-location interaction does not depend on whether or not a pre-cue is given. The manual-aiming RTs were longer than the finger-lifting RTs, and the effects of the target location on the RTs differed for finger lifting and manual aiming. It can be assumed that the longer RTs of manual aiming reflect the time for information processing that is needed when preparing for the aiming action per se, which is an extra movement performed in addition to the simple initiation of finger lifting. Differential RTs (DRTs) calculated by subtracting the finger-lifting RTs from the aiming RTs were therefore examined. The DRTs significantly differed for target locations (i.e., a lateralized effect), with the DRTs for an ipsilateral target appearing to be significantly shorter than those for contralateral and central targets. The lateralized effect appearing on the DRTs may be mediated by the processing of visual-spatial information about visual targets as motor preparations are made for manual aiming.     

学生智力与反应时的关系的教育神经心理学研究

通过比较不同智商者的大脑两半球的反应时发现,小学生中智力较高者大脑西半球的反应时较智力较低者明显为短,说明智力水平与大脑反应明显相关;选择反应时与智力水平的关系较简单反应时尤为密切。但正确反应率在两组之间未见有明显差异。     

Picture naming in young children: a developmental study on interhemispheric collaboration

The aim of the present study was to determine how interhemispheric collaboration and visual attention in basic lexical tasks develop during early childhood. Two- to 6-year-old children were asked to name two different pictures presented simultaneously either one in each visual hemifield (bilateral condition) or both in a single hemifield (either right or left, unilateral condition). In the bilateral condition, children were overall more accurate in naming right visual field than left visual field pictures. This difference was significant for 2- and 3- to 4-year-old children, but not for 5- to 6-year-old children. These results show that the right and left cerebral hemispheres do not develop naming competencies equally well in early childhood. A second analysis, based on the order of report, showed that when 2- and 3- to 4-year-old children named both the left and the right visual field pictures, they named the right visual field picture first. In contrast, at the age of 5-6 years, children named the left visual field picture first and overall naming performance reached a ceiling level. Several interpretations are proposed to explain this shift of visual attention at the age of 5-6 years. In the unilateral condition, no difference was found between naming accuracy in the right and left visual fields, presumably because interhemispheric pathways are functional: visual stimuli presented to the right hemisphere can be processed by the most competent left hemisphere without degradation of information. This result confirms previous findings on the development of interhemispheric collaboration.     

The influence of visual search efficiency on the time-course of identity-based SR-compatibility

Three experiments were conducted to investigate the impact of stimulus-driven control on the time-course of stimulus-response (SR) compatibility. Participants responded to the presence or absence of a singleton arrow that was presented among multiple nontargets. When the singleton arrow was present, observers pressed a button with their right index finger, when it was absent they pressed with their left-index finger. SR-compatibility depended on the relation between the identity of the target and the present response: Even though the identity of the target singleton arrow (whether it was pointing to the right or left) was irrelevant to the task, the direction could be corresponding (right arrow) or noncorresponding (left arrow) with a target present response (the right hand). To examine the time-course of performance target-distractor similarity was varied to increase or decrease visual search efficiency and accordingly response latency. There were three main findings. First, the results of Experiment 1 showed that observers were no faster to respond 'present' when the singleton arrow pointed to the right (corresponding to the right hand) than when it pointed left (noncorresponding to the right hand) in a simple present-absent detection task. Second, only when observers were encouraged to process the identity of the arrow singleton, an effect of an SR-compatibility effect was found which developed over time. Third, the time-course of SR-compatibility was not influenced by visual search efficiency. The results of the present work suggest that visual selection and response selection occur in different stages.