基于不同位置线索提示条件下的运动员返回抑制能力的比较
详细信息 查看官网全文
- 英文论文题名：The Comparison of athletes' recurrent inhibition ability based on different location cues' prompting
- 论文作者：张禹 ; 刘婷
- 英文论文作者：Zhang Yu ; Liu Ting ; Department of Psychology ; Beijing Sports University ; Department of Psychology ; Peking University
- 年：2015
- 作者机构：北京体育大学运动心理学教研室;北京大学心理学系;
- 论文关键词：环境主导 ; 主体主导 ; 返回抑制 ; 线索有效性
- 英文论文关键词：environmental dominant note type ; main dominant note type ; IOR ; cues' validity
- 会议召开时间：2015-10-16
- 会议录名称：第十八届全国心理学学术会议摘要集——心理学与社会发展
- 英文会议录名称：Proceedings of the 18th National Academic Congress of Psychology
- 语种：中文
- 分类号：G804.8
- 学会代码：ZGXG
- 会议名称：第十八届全国心理学学术会议
- 会议地点：中国天津
- 主办单位：中国心理学会
- 学会名称：中国心理学会
- 页数：2
- 文件大小：791k
- 原文格式：D
- 会议级别：全国
摘要
采用经典的线索-靶子实验范式与Go/No Go任务相结合的方式探究不同注意类型运动员与普通大学生的返回抑制能力及线索有效性对不同人群返回抑制能力的影响。实验为3×2的混合设计,组间变量为实验参与者组别(篮球运动员vs.田径运动员vs.普通大学生,共52人),组内变量为线索有效性(有效线索vs.无效线索)。结果发现:(1)以实验参与者Go任务的按键反应时为因变量,进行3(组别:篮球运动员vs.田径运动员vs.普通大学生)×2(线索有效性:有效线索vs.无效线索)的重复测量方差分析,结果发现实验参与者的组别主效应显著(F(2,49)=6.03,p<.01,偏η~2=.20),线索有效性主效应显著(F(1,49)=354.17,p<.01,偏η~2=.88),组别×线索有效性的交互作用显著(F(2,49)=5.23,p<.01,偏η~2=.18);(2)以返回抑制量为因变量,组别(篮球运动员、田径运动员、普通大学生)为自变量进行单因素方差分析,结果发现组别这一因素的主效应在统计上显著(F(2,49)=5.23,p<.01);为进一步了解不同组别下运动员返回抑制能力的差别,对其做进一步的多重比较事后检验,结果发现,篮球运动员与田径运动员的平均返回抑制量之间的比较是统计不显著的(p>.05),而篮球运动员和田径运动员分别与普通大学生的平均返回抑制量之间的比较是统计显著的(p<.05)。说明(1)无效线索提示条件下个体的反应速度快于有效线索提示条件下的反应速度;(2)环境主导注意型运动员的返回抑制能力强于普通大学生的返回抑制能力;(3)主体主导注意型运动员的返回抑制能力也强于普通大学生。
By adopting the classic clues- target experimental paradigm and Go/No Go task, the authors explored the ability of inhibition of return and the effect of clues' validity to IOR's ability of different note type of athletes and ordinary college students. The experiment is a mixed 3×2 design. The inter group variables are tested group designations(basketball athletes vs. track and field athletes vs. ordinary college students, a total of 52 people), while the inner group variables are cues' validity(valid cues vs. invalid cues). The result revealed that:(1)by adopting a 3×2 ANOVO with the dependence variable of participants' reacting time who did Go task, the result revealed that group's main effect is significant(F(2,49)=6.03, p<.01, pη~2=.20), clues' validity's main effect is significant(F(1,49)=354.17, p<.01, pη~2=.88); and group × clues' validity's interaction is significant(F(2,49)=5.23, p<.01, pη~2=.18);(2)by adopting a Single factor analysis of variance with the independent variable of group designations and the dependent of IOR number,the result revealed that group designations' effect is significant(F(2,49)=5.23, p<.01). In order to know different athletes' IOR ability's difference, the current study would adopt a LSD for group designations, the result revealed that the comparison of IOR ability between basketball athletes and track and field athletes is statistically insignificant(p>.05), but the comparison of IOR ability between basketball athletes and ordinary college students is statistically significant, and the comparison of IOR ability between track and field athletes and ordinary college students is statistically significant(p<.05). The conclusion is:(1)individuals' response speed under the conditions of invalid cues is faster than the speed of response of individuals under conditions valid cues;(2)environmental dominant note type athletes' IOR ability is stronger than the college students';(3)main dominant note type athletes' IOR ability is stronger than the college students'.
By adopting the classic clues- target experimental paradigm and Go/No Go task, the authors explored the ability of inhibition of return and the effect of clues' validity to IOR's ability of different note type of athletes and ordinary college students. The experiment is a mixed 3×2 design. The inter group variables are tested group designations(basketball athletes vs. track and field athletes vs. ordinary college students, a total of 52 people), while the inner group variables are cues' validity(valid cues vs. invalid cues). The result revealed that:(1)by adopting a 3×2 ANOVO with the dependence variable of participants' reacting time who did Go task, the result revealed that group's main effect is significant(F(2,49)=6.03, p<.01, pη~2=.20), clues' validity's main effect is significant(F(1,49)=354.17, p<.01, pη~2=.88); and group × clues' validity's interaction is significant(F(2,49)=5.23, p<.01, pη~2=.18);(2)by adopting a Single factor analysis of variance with the independent variable of group designations and the dependent of IOR number,the result revealed that group designations' effect is significant(F(2,49)=5.23, p<.01). In order to know different athletes' IOR ability's difference, the current study would adopt a LSD for group designations, the result revealed that the comparison of IOR ability between basketball athletes and track and field athletes is statistically insignificant(p>.05), but the comparison of IOR ability between basketball athletes and ordinary college students is statistically significant, and the comparison of IOR ability between track and field athletes and ordinary college students is statistically significant(p<.05). The conclusion is:(1)individuals' response speed under the conditions of invalid cues is faster than the speed of response of individuals under conditions valid cues;(2)environmental dominant note type athletes' IOR ability is stronger than the college students';(3)main dominant note type athletes' IOR ability is stronger than the college students'.
引文