视觉选择性注意对注意缺损多动障碍儿童数字距离效应的影响

采用Posner的内源性和外源性线索实验范式,材料为1~9的阿拉伯数字(不包括5),以判断目标数字是否大于5为任务,考察视觉选择性注意中的内源性注意和外源性注意对注意缺陷型多动障碍儿童(ADHD)数字加工距离效应的影响。结果发现:(1)内源性和外源性注意条件下,正常儿童在数字判断加工任务中的反应时短于ADHD儿童;(2)内源性有效线索提示条件下,ADHD儿童和正常儿童均表现出显著的数字距离效应;而无效线索提示条件下,ADHD儿童的大小数字距离效应均不明显,正常儿童仍然表现出显著的数字距离效应;(3)外源性有效线索提示条件下,ADHD儿童的小数字距离效应显著,但大数字距离效应不明显,正常儿童则表现出显著的大小数字距离效应;而无效线索提示条件下,只有正常儿童表现出显著的数字距离效应,ADHD儿童的数字距离效应不显著。     

内外源提示下学障儿童注意定向的眼动研究

对三、六年级22名学障儿童和22名按年龄、性别和受教育水平匹配的正常儿童在内外源提示下的注意表现进行了眼动研究。结果表明:当内源性提示有效性比例较低时,学障和正常儿童的提示效度效应均不明显;当提示目标间隔时间较长时,外源性提示有效性对各组被试的反应时无显著影响;在内外源性提示下,六年级儿童的绩效好于三年级;学障儿童在反应时间、加工速度上和正常儿童没有显著差异,但在加工广度和策略上不如正常儿童。这些结果表明学障儿童的注意定向和相关的认知加工能力与正常儿童有所差异。     

内源性注意和外源性注意对中小学生SNARC效应的影响

采用内源性注意和外源性注意实验范式,以判断数字奇偶为任务,材料为1～9的阿拉伯数字,考察内源性和外源性线索不同注意条件下中小学生的数字加工SNARC效应。结果发现:(1)内源性线索和外源性线索条件下,中小学生在数字加工任务中所表现出来的SNARC效应随着年龄增长逐渐增大;(2)内源性线索和外源性线索注意条件下,各年级学生均表现出显著的SNARC效应;(3)内源性线索非注意条件下,中学生能够表现出显著的SNARC效应,但小学生的SNARC效应不明显;外源性线索非注意条件下,高中生能够表现出显著的SNARC效应,但小学生和初中生的SNARC效应不明显,说明外源性注意对中小学生数字加工SNARC效应的影响比内源性注意大,且对SNARC效应的影响主要表现在较大的数字8和9上。     

内源性注意和外源性注意条件下SOA变化对数字距离效应的影响

采用内源性注意和外源性注意实验范式,材料为小数(1～4)和大数(6～9)的阿拉伯数字,以判断数字是否大于5为任务,考察内源性和外源性线索不同注意条件下SOA对数字距离效应的影响。结果发现:(1)内源性线索条件下,随着SOAs增加,大小数的距离效应逐渐增大,当SOA为900ms时,大小数的距离效应最明显;(2)外源性线索条件下,当SOA为300ms时,大小数的距离效应最显著,随着SOAs增加,大小数的距离效应逐渐减小。     

不同提示线索对于Stroop干扰效应的影响

本研究采用线索提示任务探讨了不同提示线索颜色、SOA及提示有效应对于经典Stroop干扰效应的影响。结果发现,线索提示类型及其颜色是否与目标色词一致会对Stroop任务产生显著影响。其中有效提示下出现显著Stroop效应,而无效提示下Stroop效应消失,显示视觉注意空间搜索会影响Stroop效应;线索提示颜色与色词颜色是否一致同样影响Stroop干扰效应,两者不一致时存在显著Stroop效应,而两者一致时Stroop效应消失,表明Stroop效应的发生依赖于色词加工中不同通道间信息的转译。 关键词：Stroop 效应;线索提示任务;转译理论     

儿童在归纳推理中的多样性效应

3个实验探讨了儿童在归纳推理中是否具有多样性效应的争议。实验1采用寻找证据法,使用图片材料,得出5岁儿童在归纳推理中没有多样性效应,表现为典型性效应。实验2改用归属法发现:5岁儿童在归纳推理中表现出多样性效应。实验3采用寻找证据法,但使用实物材料,并且加大了多样性前提的差异程度,结果发现:3岁儿童在归纳推理中也表现出多样性效应。本研究结果表明,在适合的条件下,儿童在归纳推理中能表现出多样性效应。     

阈上阈下不同面孔表情下的注视线索提示效应

为考察阈上、阈下不同面孔表情下的注视线索提示效应, 实验以阈上和阈下面孔的不同注视朝向为提示线索, 同时变化面孔表情, 要求被试迅速和准确地对随后出现的靶刺激(大写字母)的呈现位置做出判断。结果显示, 在阈上呈现条件下, 注视线索提示效应显著, 且该效应不受面孔表情的影响。在阈下呈现条件下, 注视线索提示效应显著, 但该效应受到了面孔表情的调节, 表现为在注视线索无效时, 判断目标位置所需反应时在正性、负性面孔表情下显著长于中性面孔条件。上述结果说明, 阈上知觉时, 面孔表情虽被清晰感知, 但个体自上而下的控制机制使其被忽略, 因而未能影响个体的注意偏向; 阈下知觉时, 面孔表情得到自动加工, 并影响了个体的注意偏向。     

不同注意提示线索条件下汉字数字加工的SNARC效应

采用Ponser的实验范式.以判断"壹"到"玖"的汉字数字奇偶为任务,探讨不同提示线索时在注意条件与非注意条件下的空间数字反应编码联合效应(SNARC效应).实验结果发现: (1)当有效提示线索为80%时,注意条件下汉字数字出现了SNARC效应,而非注意条件下对汉字数字的加工没有出现SNARC效应; (2)当有效提示线索为50%时,在注意和非注意条件下汉字数字都出现了明显的SNARC效应.结果表明注意水平对SNARC效应产生了影响.     

三维空间中外源性注意启动效应的ERP研究

采用行为测量与ERP分析相结合的范式,以视差分离方式和线索提示有效性为自变量,考察三维空间中外源性注意定向的启动效应及其脑电机制.结果发现:短SOA下,无论是3D还是2D,非预测性边缘位置线索对后续辨认任务均发生了启动效应;3D空间中,边缘位置线索提示诱发了注意的自动定向,注意从一个深度面转移到另一深度面需要耗费一定时间;3D空间中,经典注意提示效应在ERP上表现为有效提示下P1、N1、N2等早成分的增强,跨深度空间启动效应主要应由N1的增强效应加以解释.     

折中效应的整合性机制

摘要：文中通过导入适应水平理论,使用二分类Logistics回归模型分析复合因素下折中效应的变化规律。共有以下发现：第一,信息提示方式对于折中效应有主效应,而且,信息的单面提示比双面提示方式下更易出现折中效应;第二,信息提示方式、精致化、风险认知对于折中效应有显著的二阶交互效应;第三,消费者的产品卷入、产品知识、风险认知分别与折中效应有正或负的关系。结论表明,在信息提示方式的调节作用之下,折中效应中不但分别存在单一的ELM抑制机制以及风险认知促进机制,而且还存在它们的双重机制。     

The role of attention in the facilitation effect and another "inhibition of return"

The present study investigated how anticipation of a target's appearance affects human attention to gaze cues provided by a schematic face. Subjects in a 'catch' group received a high number of 'catch' trials, in which no target stimulus appeared. Subjects in the control group did not receive any catch trials. As in previous studies, both groups showed a facilitation effect to the cued location during shorter stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA). In both groups, an analysis of eye movements confirmed that subjects' eyes remained on the fixation point, ruling out the possibility that the facilitation effect was due to shifting eye movements (saccades) as opposed to a shift in covert attention. But while the control group's response time (RT) decreased as SOA increased, the catch group's RT had a U-shaped pattern and the facilitation effect to the cued location was reversed at the longest SOA (1005 ms). These results suggest that subjects in the catch group disengaged their attention during long SOAs because they expected the trial to be a catch trial. This disengagement of attention during long SOAs results in a delay before attention could be re-focused to the previous location regardless of the cue validity ["IOR (inhibition of return)"-like-phenomenon]. Unlike the conventional IOR, we suggest that this "IOR"-like phenomenon caused by an unpredictive central gaze cue is likely to be mediated by an endogenous mechanism.     

Examining the role of the fixation cue in inhibition of return.

To clarify the role of the fixation cue in inhibition of return (IOR), the present study compared four conditions: fixation cue immediately after the peripheral cue, in the middle of the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA), immediately before the onset of the target, or no fixation cue. With a 200-ms SOA, less IOR was found when the fixation cue was either absent or occurred immediately after the peripheral cue. No differences between the four conditions were found with 400-ms and 800-ms SOAs. These findings suggest that there is a brief period of time in which attention cannot be withdrawn from the peripherally cued location. Once attention has been withdrawn from the peripherally cued location, IOR can be found at short SOAs.     

Spatiotemporal distribution of facilitation and inhibition of return arising from the reflexive orienting of covert attention

Currently, there is debate regarding both the spatial and temporal relationship between facilitation and inhibition of return (IOR) components of attention, as observed on the covert orienting of visual attention task (COVAT). These issues were addressed in a series of experiments where the spatial and temporal relationships between cue and target were manipulated. Facilitation occurred only when the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was short and there was temporal overlap between cue and target. IOR occurred only when SOA was long and there was no temporal overlap between cue and target. Facilitation encompassed the cued location and all locations between the cue and fixation, whereas IOR arose for the entire cued hemifield. These findings suggest that the facilitation and IOR found on COVATs that use noninformative peripheral cues are separable and stimulus-driven processes.     

Inhibition of return in manual and saccadic response systems

When nonpredictive exogenous visual cues are used to reflexively orient covert visual spatial attention, the initial early facilitation for detecting stimuli at cued versus uncued spatial locations develops into inhibition by 300 msec following the cue, a pattern referred to as inhibition of return (IOR). Experiments were carried out comparing the magnitude and time course for development of IOR effects when manual versus saccadic responses were required. The results showed that both manual and saccadic responses result in equivalent amounts of facilitation following initial exposure to a spatial cue. However, IOR developed more quickly for saccadic responses, such that, at certain cue-target SOAs, saccadic responses to targets were inhibited, whereas manual responses were still facilitated. The findings are interpreted in terms of a premotor theory of visual attention.     

Grabbing attention without knowing: Automatic capture of attention by subliminal spatial cues

The present study shows that an abrupt onset cue that is not consciously perceived can cause attentional facilitation followed by inhibition at the cued location. The observation of this classic biphasic effect of facilitation followed by inhibition of return (IOR) suggests that the subliminal cue captured attention in a purely exogenous way. Since IOR is not observed following endogenous shifts of spatial attention, but is observed following exogenous, stimulus-driven shifts of spatial attention, it is unlikely that top-down control settings or other non-attentional effects played a role. The current findings are interpreted in terms of a neurobiological model of visual awareness.     

Objects and their locations in exogenous cuing

Anatomical, physiological, and behavioral studies provide support for separate object- and locationbased components of visual attention. Although studies of object-based components have usually involved voluntary attention, more recent evidence has suggested that objects may play an independent role in reflexiveexogenous orienting, at least at long stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). In the present experiments, the role of objects in reflexive attentional orienting was investigated by developing a task in which location and object cuing could be separately examined for both short and long SOAs. Typical location cuing effects were obtained, indicating facilitation at short cue—target intervals and inhibition of return (IOR) at longer intervals. In contrast, object cuing resulted in facilitation for cued objects at long cue—target intervals and no object-based IOR. Interestingly, object cuing primarily affected targets at cued locations, and not those at uncued locations. Together, the experiments examine the interactive nature of objects and locations in exogenous orienting and seem most consistent with a location-mediated view of object-based orienting.     

Disentangling perceptual and motor components in inhibition of return

Following an abrupt onset of a peripheral stimulus (a cue), the response to a visual target is faster when the target appears at the cued position than when it appears at other positions. However, if the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) is longer than approximately 300 ms, the response to the target is slower at the cued position than that at other positions. This phenomenon of a longer response time to cued targets is called "inhibition of return" (IOR). Previous hypotheses propose contributions of both response inhibition and attentional inhibition at cued position to IOR, and suggest that responding to the cue can eliminate the component of response inhibition. The current study uses tasks either executing or withholding response to the cue to investigate the relative contributions of response and attention components to IOR. A condition with bilateral display of the cue is also chosen as a control condition, and eight different SOAs between 1,000 and 2,750 ms are tested. Compared to the control condition, response delay to the target at a cued position is eliminated by responding to the cue, and a response advantage to the target at an uncued position is not affected by responding to the cue. Furthermore, both response delay at a cued position and response advantage at an uncued position decrease with SOA in the time window tested in these experiments. The results reported here indicate a dominant response inhibition at a cued position and a primary attentional allocation at an uncued position for IOR. Nonsignificant perceptual/attentional suppression at a cued position is argued to be a benefit for visual detection in a changing world.     

On the uniqueness of attentional capture by uninformative gaze cues: facilitation interacts with the Simon effect and is rarely followed by IOR.

Orienting to an uninformative peripheral cue is characterized by a brief facilitation followed by a long-lasting inhibition once attention is removed from the cued location. Although central gaze cues cause reflexive orienting, the inhibitory effect that is relatively ubiquitous following exogenous orienting to uninformative peripheral cues has been relatively rare. We hypothesized that IOR might be seen following gaze-induced orienting if attention were effectively returned to centre by a return gaze or return flash. The timecourse of gaze-directed orienting was measured by varying the interval between the gaze cue and a peripheral target requiring an orientation discrimination (permitting measurement of the Simon effect). Significant facilitation was observed at all but the longest SOA tested, 2,880 ms, by which time the facilitation had disappeared with no evidence of IOR. Gaze-induced cuing (which was unaffected by return cue condition) interacted with the Simon effect, decreasing it at the gazed-at location, a pattern that is not seen with more typical endogenous and exogenous cuing.     

不同SOA下视觉返回抑制对视听觉整合的调节作用

基于外源性线索-靶子范式, 采用2(线索-靶子间隔时间, stimulus onset asynchronies, SOA：400~600 ms、1000~1200 ms) × 3(目标刺激类型：视觉、听觉、视听觉) × 2(线索有效性：有效线索、无效线索)的被试内实验设计, 要求被试对目标刺激完成检测任务, 以考察视觉线索诱发的返回抑制(inhibition of return, IOR)对视听觉整合的调节作用, 从而为感知觉敏感度、空间不确定性及感觉通道间信号强度差异假说提供实验证据。结果发现：(1) 随SOA增长, 视觉IOR效应显著降低, 视听觉整合效应显著增强; (2) 短SOA (400~600 ms)时, 有效线索位置上的视听觉整合效应显著小于无效线索位置, 但长SOA (1000~1200 ms)时, 有效与无效线索位置上的视听觉整合效应并无显著差异。结果表明, 在不同SOA条件下, 视觉IOR对视听觉整合的调节作用产生变化, 当前结果支持感觉通道间信号强度差异假说。     

自我面孔对返回抑制的影响:来自指数高斯分布的证据

采用线索—靶子范式及指数高斯分布拟合技术,观测自我面孔对返回抑制的调节作用。平均反应时结果显示,与他人面孔相比,自我面孔作为线索也出现了返回抑制,但抑制量明显下降。表明自我面孔对返回抑制有一定调节作用。指数高斯分布拟合结果显示,返回抑制的线索化效应体现在高斯参数上,自我面孔的调节效应体现在指数参数上。提示返回抑制在知觉层面会比较稳定地发生;自我面孔可能主要通过影响个体对靶子的反应决策阈限实现调节。