阅读中的快速启动范式述评

快速启动范式（Sereno & Rayner, 1992）是一种基于呈现随眼动变化技术而设计的眼动范式,主要用于研究中央凹视野内字词识别的瞬时启动,通过精确控制启动条件和启动时窗,以考察词汇通达过程中词汇水平（如,词频、词长等）、亚词汇水平（如,语音、语义、字形等）信息的加工时序。本文从基本原理、设计基础、应用领域、注意事项等方面对快速启动范式进行了较为深入的解读和介绍,并结合已有的研究成果,指出了该范式在汉语阅读中的应用价值。     

任务与字频对汉字情绪启动反转效应的影响

本研究使用ERP技术对比了效价判断与真假字判断两种任务形式下的汉字情绪启动效应。结果发现,在效价判断任务中高频目标字出现情绪启动的反转效应,效价不一致比一致条件下反应时短,诱发了较大的P200;低频目标字出现情绪启动的一致性效应,效价一致比不一致条件下反应时短,诱发了较大的P200与N400。真假字判断任务中高频和低频目标字均出现情绪启动的一致性效应。情绪启动的反转效应依赖于刺激材料的可通达性与注意导向,启动字与目标字的反应竞争关系导致了情绪启动的反转效应。     

不同SOA条件下的情感启动效应研究

在150ms和250ms两种SOA条件下,以彩色图片为启动刺激,以汉语双字词为目标刺激,通过评价分类任务考察情感启动效应。结果表明在两种SOA条件下均存在显著的情感启动效应;积极启动和消极启动对目标词产生了不同的影响。类似Stroop效应的反应冲突机制可解释本研究所获得的结果。     

On the masking and disclosure of unconscious elaborate processing. A reply to Van Opstal, Reynvoet, and Verguts (2005)

We have recently argued that unconscious numerical stimuli might activate responses by a match with prespecified action trigger codes (action trigger account) rather than by semantic prime processing (elaborate processing account). [Van Opstal, F., Reynvoet, B., and Verguts, T. (2005). How to trigger elaborate processing? A comment on Kunde, Kiesel, and Hoffmann (2003). Cognition] replicate one piece of evidence for our inference—an inefficiency of primes not presented in target format (verbal or Arabic). But this was found only with letter masks and not with hash masks. The authors conclude that letter masks block unconscious prime processing, and that elaborate processing can account for unconscious priming effects if all its (sometimes subtle) side conditions are considered. We agree that the type of mask in general is an important factor in priming studies but we note that (i) the authors' mask-blocking hypothesis is not well supported by the data, (ii) clear evidence for semantic prime processing in their study is lacking and, (iii) differences in mask efficiency (rather than mask type) might account for the conflicting results. To corroborate this inference we replicate van Opstal et al.'s results with letter masks but reduced mask efficiency. Altogether their data do not challenge the action-trigger account nor do they strongly support the elaborate processing view.     

情绪启动与语义启动的比较

情绪启动与语义启动发生时孰先孰后、进行中独立平行还是交互作用、效应上孰强孰弱,还存在较大争议.这些争议的本质涉及到人脑中情绪和认知这两大基本系统的关系认识问题.通过行为观察与事件相关脑电位技术结合,在同一个实验中设置情绪启动、语义启动两种情境,并匹配可能影响这两种启动效应的因素,如信息强度、启动刺激和靶刺激的信息关联程度等,然后系统性变化启动刺激呈现的时间、SOA、实验任务等,并逐步加入被试的年龄、性别、学科专业、认知风格、情绪易感性等个体差异变量,可望直接而系统地澄清争议,深层次揭示情绪信息流与语义信息流的加工特点,并进而揭示人脑情绪系统与认知系统功能与机制的发展规律.     

语言理解转换中非目标语言影响目标语言的时间进程

运用跨语言即时启动和延时启动范式,要求被试完成生物属性的语义判断任务,研究语言理解转换中非目标语言影响目标语言语义理解的时间进程。实验1非目标语言为英文,目标语言为中文,结果表明,无论是即时启动(t = -0.423, p = 0.676),还是延时启动(t = -0.82, p = 0.419),语义相关组与语义无关组都无显著差异。实验2非目标语言为中文,目标语言为英文,结果表明,在即时启动条件下,语义相关组显著快于语义无关组(t = -3.05, p = 0.006),但延时条件下语义相关组与语义无关组无显著差异(t = -0.63, p = 0.536)。综合两个实验结果表明,晚期熟练双语者在双语语言理解转换过程中语义的即时启动影响存在不对称性,语义相关的非目标语言中文对目标语言英文语义理解起促进作用;但是语义启动效应没有得到延时体现。     

Consciousness and cognitive control

The implementation or change of information processing routines, known as cognitive control, is traditionally believed to be closely linked to consciousness. It seems that we exert control over our behavior if we know the reasons for, and consequences of, doing so. Recent research suggests, however, that several behavioral phenomena that have been construed as instances of cognitive control can be prompted by events of which actors are not aware. Here we give a brief review of this research, discuss possible reasons for inconsistencies in the empirical evidence, and suggest some lines of future research. Specifically, we suggest to differentiate cognitive control evoked either because of explicit or because of implicit control cues. While the former type of control seems to work outside of awareness, the latter type of control seems to be restricted to consciously registered events that call for control.     

Iconic gestures prime words

Using a cross-modal semantic priming paradigm, both experiments of the present study investigated the link between the mental representations of iconic gestures and words. Two groups of the participants performed a primed lexical decision task where they had to discriminate between visually presented words and nonwords (e.g., flirp). Word targets (e.g., bird) were preceded by video clips depicting either semantically related (e.g., pair of hands flapping) or semantically unrelated (e.g., drawing a square with both hands) gestures. The duration of gestures was on average 3,500 ms in Experiment 1 but only 1,000 ms in Experiment 2. Significant priming effects were observed in both experiments, with faster response latencies for related gesture-word pairs than unrelated pairs. These results are consistent with the idea of interactions between the gestural and lexical representational systems, such that mere exposure to iconic gestures facilitates the recognition of semantically related words.     

A computational cognitive model of syntactic priming

The psycholinguistic literature has identified two syntactic adaptation effects in language production: rapidly decaying short-term priming and long-lasting adaptation. To explain both effects, we present an ACT-R model of syntactic priming based on a wide-coverage, lexicalized syntactic theory that explains priming as facilitation of lexical access. In this model, two well-established ACT-R mechanisms, base-level learning and spreading activation, account for long-term adaptation and short-term priming, respectively. Our model simulates incremental language production and in a series of modeling studies, we show that it accounts for (a) the inverse frequency interaction; (b) the absence of a decay in long-term priming; and (c) the cumulativity of long-term adaptation. The model also explains the lexical boost effect and the fact that it only applies to short-term priming. We also present corpus data that verify a prediction of the model, that is, that the lexical boost affects all lexical material, rather than just heads.     

The effects of process and outcome accountability on judgment process and performance

This article challenges the view that it is always better to hold decision makers accountable for their decision process rather than their decision outcomes. In three multiple-cue judgment studies, the authors show that process accountability, relative to outcome accountability, consistently improves judgment quality in relatively simple elemental tasks. However, this performance advantage of process accountability does not generalize to more complex configural tasks. This is because process accountability improves an analytical process based on cue abstraction, while it does not change a holistic process based on exemplar memory. Cue abstraction is only effective in elemental tasks (in which outcomes are a linear additive combination of cues) but not in configural tasks (in which outcomes depend on interactions between the cues). In addition, Studies 2 and 3 show that the extent to which process and outcome accountability affect judgment quality depends on individual differences in analytical intelligence and rational thinking style.