面孔表情和声音情绪信息整合对返回抑制的影响

返回抑制(inhibition of return, IOR)与情绪刺激都具有引导注意偏向、提高搜索效率的特点, 但二者间是否存在一定的交互作用迄今为止尚不明确。研究采用“线索-目标”范式并在视听双通道呈现情绪刺激来考察情绪刺激的加工与IOR的交互作用。实验1中情绪刺激以单通道视觉面孔或一致的视听双通道呈现, 实验2通过在视听通道呈现不一致的情绪刺激进一步考察视听双通道情绪一致刺激对IOR的影响是否是由听觉通道一致的情绪刺激导致的, 即是否对听觉通道的情绪刺激进行了加工。结果发现, 视听双通道情绪一致刺激能够削弱IOR, 但情绪不一致刺激与IOR之间不存在交互作用, 并且单双通道的IOR不存在显著差异。研究结果表明仅在视听双通道呈现情绪一致刺激时, 才会影响同一阶段的IOR, 这进一步支持了IOR的知觉抑制理论。     

试次历史对跨通道非空间返回抑制的影响

个体对刺激的反应不仅受刺激本身的影响, 还会受到先前刺激的影响, 表现为对当前试次中刺激的反应会受到前一试次的影响, 即试次历史。本研究采用“线索-中性线索-靶子”范式探讨前一试次有效性对跨通道的非空间返回抑制的影响。实验1通过连续两个试次间的线索有效性考察在跨通道非空间返回抑制中试次历史的影响。为了在跨通道非空间返回抑制中减小试次历史的影响, 实验2通过延长试次间时间间隔考察跨通道非空间返回抑制中试次历史的作用是否减小。结果发现, 前一试次线索无效时, 当前试次中的返回抑制效应量显著小于前一试次有效时, 这种影响会根据试次中线索和靶子通道的不同而不同。并且当延长试次间的时间间隔可以有效地减少前一试次对当前试次的影响。因此本研究表明, 试次历史能够对跨通道非空间返回抑制产生影响, 并且这种影响可以通过增大试次间时间间隔来减小。     

双通道分配性注意对视听觉返回抑制的影响

本研究基于线索-靶子范式, 操纵目标刺激类型(视觉、听觉、视听觉)与线索有效性(有效线索、中性条件、无效线索)两个自变量, 通过3个实验来考察双通道分配性注意对视听觉返回抑制(inhibition of return, IOR)的影响。实验1 (听觉刺激呈现在左/右侧)结果发现, 在双通道分配性注意条件下, 视觉目标产生显著IOR效应, 而视听觉目标没有产生IOR效应; 实验2 (听觉刺激呈现在左/右侧)与实验3 (听觉刺激呈现在中央)结果发现, 在视觉通道选择性注意条件下, 视觉与视听觉目标均产生显著IOR效应但二者无显著差异。结果表明：双通道分配性注意减弱视听觉IOR效应。     

Inhibition of return is composed of attentional and oculomotor processes

Response time can be delayed if a target stimulus appears at a location or object that was previously cued. This inhibition of return (IOR) phenomenon has been attributed to a delay in activating attentional or motor processes to a previously cued stimulus. Two experiments required subjects to localize or identify a target stimulus. In Experiment 1, the subjects’ eyes were not monitored. In Experiment 2, the subjects’ eyes were monitored, and the subjects were instructed to either execute or withhold an eye movement to a target stimulus. The results indicated that IOR was always present for location and identification responses, supporting an attentional account of IOR. However, IOR was larger when eye movements were executed, indicating that a motor component can contribute to IOR. Finally, when eye movements were withheld, IOR was larger when a target was presented alone than when it was presented with a distractor, suggesting that IOR is larger for exogenous than for endogenous covert orienting. Together, the data indicate that IOR is composed of both an oculomotor component and an attentional component.     

Inhibition of return is composed of attentional and oculomotor processes.

Response time can be delayed if a target stimulus appears at a location or object that was previously cued. This inhibition of return (IOR) phenomenon has been attributed to a delay in activating attentional or motor processes to a previously cued stimulus. Two experiments required subjects to localize or identify a target stimulus. In Experiment 1, the subjects' eyes were not monitored. In Experiment 2, the subjects' eyes were monitored, and the subjects were instructed to either execute or withhold an eye movement to a target stimulus. The results indicated that IOR was always present for location and identification responses, supporting an attentional account of IOR. However, IOR was larger when eye movements were executed, indicating that a motor component can contribute to IOR. Finally, when eye movements were withheld, IOR was larger when a target was presented alone than when it was presented with a distractor, suggesting that IOR is larger for exogenous than for endogenous covert orienting. Together, the data indicate that IOR is composed of both an oculomotor component and an attentional component.     

On the role of eye movements and saccade preparation in generating auditory inhibition of return.

In three experiments, listeners were required to either localize or identify the second of two successive sounds. The first sound (the cue) and the second sound (the target) could originate from either the same or different locations, and the interval between the onsets of the two sounds (Stimulus Onset Asynchrony, SOA) was varied. Sounds were presented out of visual range at 135 azimuth left or right. In Experiment 1, localization responses were made more quickly at 100 ms SOA when the target sounded from the same location as the cue (i.e., a facilitative effect), and at 700 ms SOA when the target and cue sounded from different locations (i.e., an inhibitory effect). In Experiments 2 and 3, listeners were required to monitor visual information presented directly in front of them at the same time as the auditory cue and target were presented behind them. These two experiments differed in that in order to perform the visual task accurately in Experiment 3, eye movements to visual stimuli were required. In both experiments, a transition from facilitation at a brief SOA to inhibition at a longer SOA was observed for the auditory task. Taken together these results suggest that location-based auditory IOR is not dependent on either eye movements or saccade programming to sound locations.     

Auditory and audiovisual inhibition of return

Two experiments examined any inhibition-of-return (IOR) effects from auditory cues and from preceding auditory targets upon reaction times (RTs) for detecting subsequent auditory targets. Auditory RT was delayed if the preceding auditory cue was on the same side as the target, but was unaffected by the location of the auditorytarget from the preceding trial, suggesting that response inhibition for the cue may have produced its effects. By contrast, visual detection RT was inhibited by the ipsilateral presentation of a visual target on the preceding trial. In a third experiment, targets could be unpredictably auditory or visual, and no peripheral cues intervened. Both auditory and visual detection RTs were now delayed following an ipsilateral versus contralateral target in either modality on the preceding trial, even when eye position was monitored to ensure central fixation throughout. These data suggest that auditory target—target IOR arises only when target modality is unpredictable. They also provide the first unequivocal evidence for cross-modal IOR, since, unlike other recent studies (e.g., Reuter-Lorenz, Jha, & Rosenquist, 1996; Tassinari & Berlucchi, 1995; Tassinari & Campara, 1996), the present cross-modal effects cannot be explained in terms of response inhibition for the cue. The results are discussed in relation to neurophysiological studies and audiovisual links in saccade programming.     

Stimulus spacing effects in duration perception are larger for auditory stimuli: Data and a model

Models of duration bisection have focused on the effects of stimulus spacing and stimulus modality. However, interactions between stimulus spacing and stimulus modality have not been examined systematically. Two duration bisection experiments that address this issue are reported. Experiment 1 showed that stimulus spacing influenced the classification of auditory, but not visual, stimuli. Experiment 2 used a wider stimulus range, and showed stimulus spacing effects for both visual and auditory stimuli, although the effects were larger for auditory stimuli. A version of Temporal Range Frequency Theory was applied to the data, and was used to demonstrate that the qualitative pattern of results can be captured with the single assumption that the durations of visual stimuli are less discriminable from one another than are the durations of auditory stimuli.     

Inhibition of return for target discriminations: the effect of repeating discriminated and irrelevant stimulus dimensions

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slowed reaction times when a target repeats in the same location as a preceding stimulus. In four experiments, the participants were presented with two successive stimuli, S1 and S2. In Experiments 1 and 2, the participants made a speeded discrimination of the identity or orientation of both S1 and S2 (Experiment 1) or of S2 only (Experiment 2). An IOR effect occurred for the repetition of stimulus location, but a facilitatory effect occurred if the stimulus remained unchanged or if an overt response was repeated. In Experiments 3 and 4, the participants localized S1 and S2 (Experiment 3) or S2 only (Experiment 4) to the left or right of center. In this case, repeating the same stimulus had no effect: IOR occurred any time stimulus location repeated. These results demonstrate that the expression of IOR is modulated by the repetition of a target object, but only when the task requires the discrimination of that object; when no discrimination is required, IOR is unaffected.     

Audiovisual links in exogenous covert spatial orienting

Subjects judged the elevation (up vs. down, regardless of laterality) of peripheral auditory or visual targets, following uninformative cues on either side with an intermediate elevation. Judgments were better for targets in either modality when preceded by an uninformative auditory cue on the side of the target. Experiment 2 ruled out nonattentional accounts for these spatial cuing effects. Experiment 3 found that visual cues affected elevation judgments for visual but not auditory targets. Experiment 4 confirmed that the effect on visual targets was attentional. In Experiment 5, visual cues produced spatial cuing when targets were always auditory, but saccades toward the cue may have been responsible. No such visual-to-auditory cuing effects were found in Experiment 6 when saccades were prevented, though they were present when eye movements were not monitored. These results suggest a one-way cross-modal dependence in exogenous covert orienting whereby audition influences vision, but not vice versa. Possible reasons for this asymmetry are discussed in terms of the representation of space within the brain.     

What do graded effects of semantic transparency reveal about morphological processing?

We examined the influence of semantic transparency on morphological facilitation in English in three lexical decision experiments. Decision latencies to visual targets (e.g., CASUALNESS) were faster after semantically transparent (e.g., CASUALLY) than semantically opaque (e.g., CASUALTY) primes whether primes were auditory and presented immediately before onset of the target (Experiment 1a) or visual with an stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) of 250 ms (Experiment 1b). Latencies did not differ at an SOA of 48 ms (Experiment 2) or with a forward mask at an SOA of 83 ms (Experiment 3). Generally, effects of semantic transparency among morphological relatives were evident at long but not at short SOAs with visual targets, regardless of prime modality. Moreover, the difference in facilitation after opaque and transparent primes was graded and increased with family size of the base morpheme.     

The role of preparation and cue-modality in crossmodal task switching

The present study examined the effects of cue-based preparation and cue-target modality mapping in crossmodal task switching. In two experiments, we randomly presented lateralized visual and auditory stimuli simultaneously. Subjects were asked to make a left/right judgment for a stimulus in only one of the modalities. Prior to each trial, the relevant stimulus modality was indicated by a visual or auditory cue. The cueing interval was manipulated to examine preparation. In Experiment 1, we used a corresponding mapping of cue-modality and stimulus modality, whereas in Experiment 2 the mapping of cue and stimulus modalities was reversed. We found reduced modality-switch costs with a long cueing interval, showing that attention shifts to stimulus modalities can be prepared, irrespective of cue-target modality mapping. We conclude that perceptual processing in crossmodal switching can be biased in a preparatory way towards task-relevant stimulus modalities.     

On measuring selective attention to an expected sensory modality

Perceptual judgments can be affected by expectancies regarding the likely target modality. This has been taken as evidence for selective attention to particular modalities, but alternative accounts remain possible in terms of response priming, criterion shifts, stimulus repetition, and spatial confounds. We examined whether attention to a sensory modality would still be apparent when these alternatives were ruled out. Subjects made a speeded detection response (Experiment 1), an intensity or color discrimination (Experiment 2), or a spatial discrimination response (Experiments 3 and 4) for auditory and visual targets presented in a random sequence. On each trial, a symbolic visual cue predicted the likely target modality. Responses were always more rapid and accurate for targets presented in the expected versus unexpected modality, implying that people can indeed selectively attend to the auditory or visual modalities. When subjects were cued to both the probable modality of a target and its likely spatial location (Experiment 4), separable modality-cuing and spatial-cuing effects were observed. These studies introduce appropriate methods for distinguishing attention to a modality from the confounding factors that have plagued previous normal and clinical research.     

Transfer effects of incompatible location-relevant mappings on a subsequent visual or auditory Simon task

Two experiments investigated the influence of practice with an incompatible mapping of left and right stimuli to keypress responses on performance of a subsequent Simon task, for which stimulus location was irrelevant, after a delay of 5 min or 1 week. In Experiment 1, the visual Simon effect was eliminated when the practice modality was auditory and reversed to favor noncorresponding responses when it was visual, and there was no significant effect of delay interval. In Experiment 2, significant auditory Simon effects were obtained that did not vary as a function of practice modality, with delay having only a marginal effect on the magnitude of the Simon effect. The elimination of the visual Simon effect in the transfer session is most likely due to the short-term stimulus-response associations defined for the incompatible spatial mapping remaining active during the transfer session. Because the auditory Simon effect is stronger than the visual one, more practice with the incompatible mapping may be necessary to produce reliable transfer effects for it.     

Sound enhances visual perception: cross-modal effects of auditory organization on vision

Six experiments demonstrated cross-modal influences from the auditory modality on the visual modality at an early level of perceptual organization. Participants had to detect a visual target in a rapidly changing sequence of visual distractors. A high tone embedded in a sequence of low tones improved detection of a synchronously presented visual target (Experiment 1), but the effect disappeared when the high tone was presented before the target (Experiment 2). Rhythmically based or order-based anticipation was unlikely to account for the effect because the improvement was unaffected by whether there was jitter (Experiment 3) or a random number of distractors between successive targets (Experiment 4). The facilitatory effect was greatly reduced when the tone was less abrupt and part of a melody (Experiments 5 and 6). These results show that perceptual organization in the auditory modality can have an effect on perceptibility in the visual modality.     

Autoshaping in the rat: The effects of localizable visual and auditory signals for food

Two experiments investigated autoshaping in rats to localizable visual and auditory conditioned stimuli predicting response-independent food. In Experiment 1 considerable conditioned-stimulus approach behavior was generated by a localizable visual conditioned stimulus that was situated approximately 35 cm from the food tray. Using the same apparatus in Experiment 2 we found that the conditioned-stimulus approach was generated only to a visual conditioned stimulus and not to a localizable auditory conditioned stimulus even though subjects (1) could discriminate presentations of the auditory conditioned stimulus, (2) had associated it with food, (3) could localize it, and (4) would approach the auditory stimulus if this behavior constituted an instrumental response to food. The predominant conditioned responses to the auditory stimuli were goal tracking (entering the food tray) and orienting towards the food-paired conditioned stimulus by head turning and rearing and turning. These results imply that rats do not invariably approach a localizable appetitive Pavlovian conditioned stimulus but that stimulus-approach responses depend on the nature and modality of the conditioned stimulus.     

Auditory frequency-based inhibition differs from spatial IOR

Uninformative auditory frequency cues have a facilitatory effect on reaction time and accuracy of detection and intensity discrimination of target tones for cue-target intervals of up to 3 sec (Green & McKeown, 2001; Ward, 1997). Under some conditions, however, this facilitatory effect can reverse to an inhibitory effect at cue-target intervals longer than 450 msec (Mondor, Breau, & Milliken, 1998). Thepresent work demonstrates that such inhibitory effects are not found in target-target experiments (Experiment 1) or in cue-target experiments requiring a go-no-go discrimination of the target (Experiment 2), whereas they do appear in the paradigm used by Mondor et al. (1998, Experiment 3), albeit unaffected by the similarity of cue and target. Thus, the frequency-based inhibitory effects sometimes found in auditory cuing tasks can be distinguished empirically from those characterizing spatial inhibition of return (IOR), which are found in both target-target and go-no-go cue-target paradigms. The present work and functional and neurophysiological arguments all support the position that different mechanisms underlie spatial IOR and the inhibitory effects sometimes found in auditory frequency processing.     

Inhibition of return and repetition priming effects in localization and discrimination tasks.

Inhibition of return (IOR) refers to slower responding to a stimulus that is presented at the same, rather than a different location as a preceding, spatially nonpredictive, stimulus. Repetition priming refers to speeded responding to a stimulus that duplicates the visual characteristics of a stimulus that precedes it. IOR and repetition priming effects interact in nonspatial discrimination tasks but not in localization tasks; three experiments examined whether this is due to processing differences or due to response differences between tasks. Two stimuli, S1 and S2, occurred on each trial. In Experiment 1, S1 and S2 were both peripheral arrows; in Experiment 2, S1 was a central arrow and S2 was a peripheral nondirectional rectangle; in Experiment 3, S1 was a peripheral nondirectional rectangle and S2 was a peripheral arrow. S1 never required a response; S2 required a localization or a discrimination response. Despite evidence that form information was likely extracted from the arrow stimuli, the localization task revealed no repetition priming: IOR occurred regardless of shared visual identity of the S1 and S2 arrows. The discrimination task revealed IOR only when the visual identity changed from S1 to S2; otherwise, facilitation occurred. These results suggest that IOR is masked by repetition priming only when the response depends on the explicit processing of form information; repetition priming does not occur when such information is extracted automatically but is task (and response) irrelevant.     

重复线索化和靶子注意定向对返回抑制的影响

在返回抑制范式下 ,利用线索—靶子模式进行了两个实验 ,以大学生为被试 ,以重复线索化次数来操纵线索化阶段的注意 ,以靶子的注意定向来操纵靶子加工阶段的注意 ,探讨注意对返回抑制的影响。实验一采用连续线索化方式 ,发现当靶子为自主性注意定向时 ,线索化次数对返回抑制有显著影响 ,线索化 3次时返回抑制值大于线索化 1次和 2次 ;当靶子为反射性注意定向时 ,线索化次数对返回抑制无影响。实验二采用交叉线索化方式 ,发现线索化次数对返回抑制的影响正好与实验一相反。两个实验一致表明 ,无论是线索化阶段的注意 ,还是靶子加工阶段的注意 ,均对返回抑制有显著影响 ;并且 ,在对返回抑制的影响上 ,二者存在显著交互作用。从而支持注意影响返回抑制的观点。该结果对返回抑制的机制研究有一定意义。     

What happens to an individual visual working memory representation when it is interrupted?

This study tested the hypothesis that even the simplest cognitive tasks require the storage of information in working memory (WM), distorting any information that was previously stored in WM. Experiment 1 tested this hypothesis by requiring observers to perform a simple letter discrimination task while they were holding a single orientation in WM. We predicted that performing the task on the interposed letter stimulus would cause the orientation memory to become less precise and more categorical compared to when the letter was absent or when it was present but could be ignored. This prediction was confirmed. Experiment 2 tested the modality specificity of this effect by replacing the visual letter discrimination task with an auditory pitch discrimination task. Unlike the interposed visual stimulus, the interposed auditory stimulus produced little or no disruption of WM, consistent with the use of modality‐specific representations. Thus, performing a simple visual discrimination task, but not a simple auditory discrimination task, distorts information about a single feature being maintained in visual WM. We suggest that the interposed task eliminates information stored within the focus of attention, leaving behind a WM representation outside the focus of attention that is relatively imprecise and categorical.