共查询到13条相似文献,搜索用时 60 毫秒
1.
协作抑制是指当人们在一个记忆小组中一起提取信息的时候,小组提取的信息总量比等量个体提取的信息总量要少。本研究采用经典的协作抑制研究范式和两次提取任务,考察编码方式和学习次数对协作提取任务的影响,进一步将考察协作抑制的产生机制作为总研究目的。结果表明,编码方式相同条件下出现协作抑制,而编码方式不同条件下协作抑制消失,显示协作抑制的出现与否依赖于认知条件的改变;无论是学习一次还是学习两次,在第一次小组提取中出现协作抑制,而在第二次个人提取中协作抑制消失,在使用困难学习材料时也得到同样的研究结果。研究结果支持协作抑制的提取策略破坏假说。 相似文献
2.
3.
协作抑制是指小组提取的信息量比等量个体单独提取的信息总量要少。对于协作过程降低小组成员提取潜能的机制解释,不同研究之间仍有争论。本研究实验1使用经典的生存加工范式,实验2使用联想记忆训练法,分别考察编码加工方式和编码相似性对协作提取成绩的影响,从而检验提取抑制和策略破坏机制是否能分别影响协作抑制。研究结果表明,被试在生存和非生存(愉悦度和自我经历)加工条件下都出现协作抑制现象,而生存加工条件下的协作抑制量显著小于非生存加工条件;在使用联想记忆训练法之后,相同学习顺序组没有出现协作抑制,而不同学习顺序组出现了经典的协作抑制。本研究结果为协作抑制的可能存在的多机制解释提供了证据。 相似文献
4.
采用部分线索效应经典范式与情绪Stroop任务相结合的范式,采取更为敏感的指标,对部分线索效应的认知抑制进程进行了考察,同时为提取抑制假说提供证据。结果发现,部分线索呈现后进行情绪Stroop任务,部分线索组反应时显著短于自由回忆组,提取结束后进行情绪Stroop任务,部分线索组和自由回忆组反应时差异不显著,提取未完成时,部分线索组反应时显著短于自由回忆组。结果提示,在以情绪词为实验材料的部分线索效应中,抑制在部分线索呈现之后即发生,提取未完成时,抑制持续存在,研究结果支持提取抑制假说,同时也对提取抑制假说做了一定补充,即抑制的持续时间受随后是否有提取任务调节。 相似文献
5.
有意遗忘中认知抑制机制的研究进展 总被引:10,自引:2,他引:8
1 有意遗忘和认知抑制的概念及研究意义 自Ebbinghaus在1885年发表他的实验报告后,记忆就成为心理学研究最多的领域之一。近年来,心理学家对遗忘过程的研究越来越感兴趣,特别是对有意遗忘(intentionalforgetting)或称定向遗忘(directed forgetting)的研究。 相似文献
6.
7.
8.
摘 要 协作促进是指先前协作提取的经验对后续的个人提取具有积极影响。为了探讨协作促进产生的基本条件及其原因,本研究通过两个实验分别考察了小组的人数和回忆方式对协作促进的影响以及他人再现和交叉线索对协作促进的贡献。结果表明:无论小组的大小为2人组、3人组还是4人组,回忆方式为轮流回忆还是自由回忆均能产生协作促进,且轮流回忆的协作促进量要高于自由回忆的协作促进量;他人再现对协作促进的贡献大于交叉线索。这说明协作促进是一个稳定的现象,其主要原因是他人再现的作用。 相似文献
9.
延迟学习判断的效应机制 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
研究考察了延迟学习判断的记忆假说和元记忆假说。实验一通过插入预测试的方法, 消除即时学习判断与延迟学习判断在记忆方面的差异, 结果发现, 延迟学习判断的准确性显著高于插入预测试的即时学习判断的准确性, 说明延迟学习判断的确提高了元记忆水平; 实验二采用PRAM实验程序, 对元记忆假说的机制进行探讨, 结果发现, 加入干扰任务的即时学习判断排除短时记忆的程度远远低于延迟学习判断干扰, 说明学习判断的准确性与短时记忆干扰的排除程度有关, 短时记忆干扰越强, 学习判断的准确性 越低。 相似文献
10.
11.
Craig Thorley 《Memory (Hove, England)》2018,26(8):1128-1139
Most crimes have multiple eyewitnesses. The police typically interview co-witnesses separately. In time-sensitive investigations, this could slow down evidence accumulation. Having co-witnesses collaboratively recall a crime could potentially expedite evidence accumulation. However, past research shows that collaborative group members often have conflicting retrieval strategies that disrupt each other, degrading overall recall. This cost could potentially be overcome by aligning group members’ retrieval strategies with category clustering recall (CCR), which is a retrieval strategy where information is recalled from a series of forensically relevant categories (e.g., recalling the protagonists’ appearance, then actions). This study examined the costs and benefits of collaborative eyewitness memory by having collaborative pairs of strangers, nominal pairs (i.e., two individuals whose recall is pooled) and lone individuals watch a crime and recall it using free recall or CCR. The collaborative pairs recalled the crime faster than the nominal pairs. They also recalled more correct information than individuals but less than nominal pairs, irrespective of the retrieval method. There is therefore a speed-recall completeness trade-off when collaborative groups recall crimes. Importantly, all participants recalled more correct information when using CCR. This provides initial evidence suggesting that CCR is superior to free recall. Further research examining CCR’s benefits is recommended. 相似文献
12.
13.
Collaborative inhibition is a phenomenon where collaborating groups experience a decrement in recall when interacting with others. Despite this, collaboration has been found to improve subsequent individual recall. We explore these effects in semantic recall, which is seldom studied in collaborative retrieval. We also examine “parallel CMC”, a synchronous form of computer-mediated communication that has previously been found to improve collaborative recall [Hinds, J. M., & Payne, S. J. (2016). Collaborative inhibition and semantic recall: Improving collaboration through computer-mediated communication. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(4), 554–565]. Sixty three triads completed a semantic recall task, which involved generating words beginning with “PO” or “HE” across three recall trials, in one of three retrieval conditions: Individual–Individual–Individual (III), Face-to-face–Face-to-Face–Individual (FFI) and Parallel–Parallel–Individual (PPI). Collaborative inhibition was present across both collaborative conditions. Individual recall in Recall 3 was higher when participants had previously collaborated in comparison to recalling three times individually. There was no difference between face-to-face and parallel CMC recall, however subsidiary analyses of instance repetitions and subjective organisation highlighted differences in group members' approaches to recall in terms of organisation and attention to others' contributions. We discuss the implications of these findings in relation to retrieval strategy disruption. 相似文献