选择性注意在人工语法学习中的作用——回应Eitam,Schul和Hassin(2009)中的两点疑问
|
摘要
从语法规则复杂性(复杂语法vs.简单语法)的角度考察选择性注意在人工语法学习中的必要性,并且比较两种非法序列下的成绩差异来检验被忽视的语法规则是否能被习得。结果表明,纵使被注意的是简单语法,被忽视的语法也未被成功习得,只有前者才能被习得;两种非法序列下的正确率无显著差异,非法序列b所遵循的被忽视的语法未能在分类判断中起作用。选择性注意是语法规则被习得的关键。
Many recent studies showed that selective attention was indispensable in artificial grammar learning(Eitam et al., 2013; Tanaka, Kiyokawa, Yamada, Dienes, & Shigemasu, 2008). Nevertheless, Eitam et al.(2009) pointed out that there were two thoughtful questions. Firstly, due to the complexity of artificial grammar, the learning of selected grammar might exhaust cognitive resource with the result that ignored grammar had little resource to be learned. Secondly, the ignored grammar might be learnt without being detected in the test phase. Therefore, we designed the complexity of artificial grammar(complex grammar A & B vs. simple grammar C & D) and the types of illegal sequences(illegal sequence a vs. illegal sequence b) to examine both possibilities above.Sequences of inner color and of outer color with different grammars are presented simultaneously. Two groups of participants are instructed to only memorize the sequences of outer color with grammar A and grammar C, respectively; Whereas the other participants are instructed to memorize the sequences of inner color with grammar B and grammar D respectively. That means each group of participants needs to pay attention to the inner(outer) color of each sequence, and then indicate the color of the inner(outer)-color block that immediately precedes the last stimulus using the response color matrix. All participants are randomly and successively tested on the grammar underlying the selected and the neglected training sequences. They are asked to categorize each sequence which may come from 10 novel legal sequences, 10 illegal sequences a and 10 illegal sequences b as grammatical or not. Results showed that there was a significant Attention Direction × Complexity of Grammar interaction, F(1, 54) = 10.74, p <.05, η2 =.17. Participants who were tested on selected grammar showed significant difference on correct rate between simple grammar(.64 ±.14) and complex grammar(.56 ±.10), F(1,54) = 6.98, p <.05. While testing the ignored grammar, the scores obtained from simple grammar(.47 ±.11) showed no significant difference to the scores obtained from complex grammar(.52 ±.09), F(1, 54) = 3.84, p =.06. This indicated that the learning of the simple grammar rules chosen to be noted have a certain grammatical advantage over the learning of selected complex grammatical rules chosen to be noted. Moreover, no matter the illegal sequence was a or b, there was no reliable difference between probability level and the scores of the grammatical rules that had been neglected. It meant that even if the complexity of the grammar chosen to be noted was reduced, the ignored grammar could not be successfully learned. Participants who classified sequences based on selected grammar showed reliable learning as compared to chance, but participants who were tested on the ignored grammar were not.Moreover, a mixed-model analysis of variance revealed a significant Attention Direction × Ungrammatical Sequence interaction, F(1, 54) = 5.80, p <.05, η2 =.096. This analysis revealed that there was no significant difference for participants who classified sequences based on selected grammar between the condition of illegal sequences a and the condition of illegal sequences b, F(1, 54) = 3.51, p =.07, so did participants who classified sequences based on neglected grammar, F(1, 54) = 1.23, p =.27.The results above ruled out the two possibilities which came from Eitam et al.(2009), and showed the effect of selective attention on AGL.
Many recent studies showed that selective attention was indispensable in artificial grammar learning(Eitam et al., 2013; Tanaka, Kiyokawa, Yamada, Dienes, & Shigemasu, 2008). Nevertheless, Eitam et al.(2009) pointed out that there were two thoughtful questions. Firstly, due to the complexity of artificial grammar, the learning of selected grammar might exhaust cognitive resource with the result that ignored grammar had little resource to be learned. Secondly, the ignored grammar might be learnt without being detected in the test phase. Therefore, we designed the complexity of artificial grammar(complex grammar A & B vs. simple grammar C & D) and the types of illegal sequences(illegal sequence a vs. illegal sequence b) to examine both possibilities above.Sequences of inner color and of outer color with different grammars are presented simultaneously. Two groups of participants are instructed to only memorize the sequences of outer color with grammar A and grammar C, respectively; Whereas the other participants are instructed to memorize the sequences of inner color with grammar B and grammar D respectively. That means each group of participants needs to pay attention to the inner(outer) color of each sequence, and then indicate the color of the inner(outer)-color block that immediately precedes the last stimulus using the response color matrix. All participants are randomly and successively tested on the grammar underlying the selected and the neglected training sequences. They are asked to categorize each sequence which may come from 10 novel legal sequences, 10 illegal sequences a and 10 illegal sequences b as grammatical or not. Results showed that there was a significant Attention Direction × Complexity of Grammar interaction, F(1, 54) = 10.74, p <.05, η2 =.17. Participants who were tested on selected grammar showed significant difference on correct rate between simple grammar(.64 ±.14) and complex grammar(.56 ±.10), F(1,54) = 6.98, p <.05. While testing the ignored grammar, the scores obtained from simple grammar(.47 ±.11) showed no significant difference to the scores obtained from complex grammar(.52 ±.09), F(1, 54) = 3.84, p =.06. This indicated that the learning of the simple grammar rules chosen to be noted have a certain grammatical advantage over the learning of selected complex grammatical rules chosen to be noted. Moreover, no matter the illegal sequence was a or b, there was no reliable difference between probability level and the scores of the grammatical rules that had been neglected. It meant that even if the complexity of the grammar chosen to be noted was reduced, the ignored grammar could not be successfully learned. Participants who classified sequences based on selected grammar showed reliable learning as compared to chance, but participants who were tested on the ignored grammar were not.Moreover, a mixed-model analysis of variance revealed a significant Attention Direction × Ungrammatical Sequence interaction, F(1, 54) = 5.80, p <.05, η2 =.096. This analysis revealed that there was no significant difference for participants who classified sequences based on selected grammar between the condition of illegal sequences a and the condition of illegal sequences b, F(1, 54) = 3.51, p =.07, so did participants who classified sequences based on neglected grammar, F(1, 54) = 1.23, p =.27.The results above ruled out the two possibilities which came from Eitam et al.(2009), and showed the effect of selective attention on AGL.
引文
陈栩茜,张积家.(2003).注意资源理论及其进展.心理学探新,23(4),24-28.
高鑫,刘永芳.(2009).再探人工语法学习迁移效应机制.心理科学,32(1),245-247.
关守义,郭秀艳.(2016).内隐学习中的知识习得及其无意识性测量.心理与行为研究,14(2),191-201.
李秀君,石文典.(2016).选择性注意对听觉内隐学习的影响.心理学报,48(3),221-229.
Altmann,G.T.M.,Dienes,Z.,&Goode,A.(1995).Modality independence of implicitly learned grammatical knowledge.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,21(4),899-912.
Bollt,E.M.,&Jones,M.A.(2000).The complexity of artificial grammars.Nonlinear Dynamics,Psychology,and Life Sciences,4(2),153-168.
Dienes,Z.,Altmann,G.T.M.,Kwan,L.,&Goode,A.(1995).Unconscious knowledge of artificial grammars is applied strategically.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,21(5),1322-1338.
Eitam,B.,Glicksohn,A.,Shoval,R.,Cohen,A.,Schul,Y.,&Hassin,R.R.(2013).Relevance-based selectivity:The case of implicit learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,39(6),1508-1515.
Eitam,B.,Schul,Y.,&Hassin,R.R.(2009).Goal relevance and artificial grammar learning.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,62(2),228-238.
Guo,X.,Jiang,S.,Wang,H.,Zhu,L.,Tang,J.,Dienes,Z.,&Yang,Z.(2013).Unconsciously learning task-irrelevant perceptual sequences.Consciousness and Cognition,22(1),203-211.
Hendricks,M.A.,Conway,C.M.,&Kellogg,R.T.(2013).Using dual-task methodology to dissociate automatic from nonautomatic processes involved in artificial grammar learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,39(5),1491-1500.
Jiang,Y.,&Leung,A.W.(2005).Implicit learning of ignored visual context.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,12(1),100-106.
Lavie,N.(2005).Distracted and confused?:Selective attention under load.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,9(2),75-82.
Ling,X.,Guo,X.,Zheng,L.,Li,L.,Chen,M.,&Wang,Q.,et al.(2015).The neural basis of implicit learning of task-irrelevant Chinese tonal sequence.Experimental Brain Research,233(4),1125-1136.
Mathews,R.C.,Buss,R.R.,Stanley,W.B.,Blanchard-Fields,F.,Cho,J.R.,&Druhan,B.(1989).Role of implicit and explicit processes in learning from examples:A synergistic effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,15(6),1083-1100.
Reber,A.S.(1969).Transfer of syntactic structure in synthetic languages.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81(1),115-119.
Reber,A.S.(1989).Implicit learning and tacit knowledge.Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,118(3),219.
Schiff,R.,&Katan,P.(2014).Does complexity matter?meta-analysis of learner performance in artificial grammar tasks.Frontiers in Psychology,5(3),1084.
Tanaka,D.,Kiyokawa,S.,Yamada,A.,Dienes,Z.,&Shigemasu,K.(2008).Role of selective attention in artificial grammar learning.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,15(6),1154-1159.
Van den Bos,E.,&Poletiek,F.H.(2008).Effects of grammar complexity on artificial grammar learning.Memory and Cognition,36(6),1122-1131.
Van den Bos,E.,&Poletiek,F.H.(2015).Learning simple and complex artificial grammars in the presence of a semantic reference field:Effects on performance and awareness.Frontiers in Psychology,6,158.
高鑫,刘永芳.(2009).再探人工语法学习迁移效应机制.心理科学,32(1),245-247.
关守义,郭秀艳.(2016).内隐学习中的知识习得及其无意识性测量.心理与行为研究,14(2),191-201.
李秀君,石文典.(2016).选择性注意对听觉内隐学习的影响.心理学报,48(3),221-229.
Altmann,G.T.M.,Dienes,Z.,&Goode,A.(1995).Modality independence of implicitly learned grammatical knowledge.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,21(4),899-912.
Bollt,E.M.,&Jones,M.A.(2000).The complexity of artificial grammars.Nonlinear Dynamics,Psychology,and Life Sciences,4(2),153-168.
Dienes,Z.,Altmann,G.T.M.,Kwan,L.,&Goode,A.(1995).Unconscious knowledge of artificial grammars is applied strategically.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,21(5),1322-1338.
Eitam,B.,Glicksohn,A.,Shoval,R.,Cohen,A.,Schul,Y.,&Hassin,R.R.(2013).Relevance-based selectivity:The case of implicit learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception and Performance,39(6),1508-1515.
Eitam,B.,Schul,Y.,&Hassin,R.R.(2009).Goal relevance and artificial grammar learning.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,62(2),228-238.
Guo,X.,Jiang,S.,Wang,H.,Zhu,L.,Tang,J.,Dienes,Z.,&Yang,Z.(2013).Unconsciously learning task-irrelevant perceptual sequences.Consciousness and Cognition,22(1),203-211.
Hendricks,M.A.,Conway,C.M.,&Kellogg,R.T.(2013).Using dual-task methodology to dissociate automatic from nonautomatic processes involved in artificial grammar learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,39(5),1491-1500.
Jiang,Y.,&Leung,A.W.(2005).Implicit learning of ignored visual context.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,12(1),100-106.
Lavie,N.(2005).Distracted and confused?:Selective attention under load.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,9(2),75-82.
Ling,X.,Guo,X.,Zheng,L.,Li,L.,Chen,M.,&Wang,Q.,et al.(2015).The neural basis of implicit learning of task-irrelevant Chinese tonal sequence.Experimental Brain Research,233(4),1125-1136.
Mathews,R.C.,Buss,R.R.,Stanley,W.B.,Blanchard-Fields,F.,Cho,J.R.,&Druhan,B.(1989).Role of implicit and explicit processes in learning from examples:A synergistic effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning,Memory,and Cognition,15(6),1083-1100.
Reber,A.S.(1969).Transfer of syntactic structure in synthetic languages.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81(1),115-119.
Reber,A.S.(1989).Implicit learning and tacit knowledge.Journal of Experimental Psychology:General,118(3),219.
Schiff,R.,&Katan,P.(2014).Does complexity matter?meta-analysis of learner performance in artificial grammar tasks.Frontiers in Psychology,5(3),1084.
Tanaka,D.,Kiyokawa,S.,Yamada,A.,Dienes,Z.,&Shigemasu,K.(2008).Role of selective attention in artificial grammar learning.Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,15(6),1154-1159.
Van den Bos,E.,&Poletiek,F.H.(2008).Effects of grammar complexity on artificial grammar learning.Memory and Cognition,36(6),1122-1131.
Van den Bos,E.,&Poletiek,F.H.(2015).Learning simple and complex artificial grammars in the presence of a semantic reference field:Effects on performance and awareness.Frontiers in Psychology,6,158.