阅读中的无关言语效应基于过程还是基于内容?
详细信息 查看官网全文
- 英文论文题名：Does the Irrelevant Speech Effect in Reading Depend on the Process or the Content:An Eye-tracking Study
- 论文作者：孟珠 ; 闫国利 ; 刘妮娜 ; 何立媛
- 英文论文作者：Zhu Meng ; Guoli Yan ; Nina Liu ; Liyuan He ; Academy of Psychology and Behavior ; Tianjin Normal University
- 年：2015
- 作者机构：天津师范大学心理与行为研究院;
- 论文关键词：无关言语效应 ; 中文句子阅读 ; 过程干扰 ; 眼动研究
- 英文论文关键词：irrelevant speech effect ; Chinese sentence reading ; interference-by-process ; eye-tracking study
- 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：H0-05
- 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：740k
- 原文格式：D
- 会议级别：全国
摘要
无关言语效应,是指无关的背景言语显著破坏正在进行的认知任务表现的现象。已有的采用短时记忆任务的研究结果均支持无关言语效应是一种过程干扰,但目前尚无研究证实无关言语对阅读等复杂认知任务的影响是源于相同的加工过程而非视听材料内容上的相似。本研究借助眼动追踪技术,系统地探讨无关言语(新闻联播音频)对中文句子阅读的影响。实验一初步考察无关言语是否会干扰中文句子阅读,以及言语的语义成分起到怎样的作用。实验采用3(背景音类型:有意义言语,无意义言语,无)×2(目标词词频:高频,低频)两因素被试内设计。结果发现,(1)相比无背景音条件,读者在有意义言语条件下需要更长的阅读时间,更多的注视次数和回视次数;而无意义言语与无背景音条件下的眼动指标无显著差异;(2)首次注视时间上,背景音类型和词频产生显著的交互作用,表现为背景音(有意义言语和无意义言语)条件下的词频效应消失。可见,在句子阅读任务中同样存在无关言语效应,无关言语干扰了早期的词汇识别,且言语的语义成分较声学特征起到更大的作用。实验二在实验一的基础上,深入探讨在中文句子阅读任务中,无关言语效应的作用机制是过程干扰还是内容干扰。实验采用3(背景音类型:有意义言语,无意义言语,无)×2(任务类型:自然阅读,校对阅读)两因素混合实验设计。实验的基本假设:在不影响听觉呈现的言语和视觉呈现的句子内容相似程度的前提下,仅通过指导语改变被试完成任务所采用的策略,如果无关言语效应基于过程,则效应大小应有所不同;如果无关言语效应基于内容,则效应大小不会受指导语的调节,言语对自然阅读和校对阅读的干扰应不存在差异。结果发现:在总阅读时间,注视次数等整体指标上,背景音类型与任务类型产生显著的交互作用。说明无关言语对阅读任务的干扰基于相同的加工过程。
The irrelevant speech effect(ISE) refers to the impairment of visual-information processing by background speech. Research on the ISE has focused on short-term memory for visually-presented word lists. And they favor that the ISE results from interference-by-process. The present research extends this work by using measures of eye movements to examine the effect of irrelevant speech on the identification of words during the reading of Chinese sentences. Experiment 1 was designed to explore whether the irrelevant speech interference Chinese sentence reading and the influence of semanticity of speech on reading. Participants either read sentences while being exposed to meaningful speech(from China Central Television News) or meaningless speech(the same speech scrambled to make it unintelligible) or silence. A target word of high or low lexical frequency was embedded in each sentence. The results were as follows:(1)Meaningful, but not meaningless, irrelevant speech disrupts sentence-level eye movement behavior, causing readers to make more fixations and regressions.(2)A word frequency effect was obtained in first fixation duration only for silent reading. But normal word frequency effects were observed in later measures in all reading conditions. These findings suggested that semantic content, rather than the acoustic properties of speech, interfered with reading. Furthermore, both meaningful and meaningless irrelevant speech interferes with early word identification. Experiment 2 aimed to further investigate whether the irrelevant speech effect results from interference-by-process or interference-by-content. A 3(background speech type: meaningful speech, meaningless speech, silence)×2(task instruction: normal reading, proofreading) mixed design. The background speech type was the within-subjects factor, and the task instruction was the between-subjects factor. The basic hypothesis was that if the irrelevant speech effect was due to the content, then we would expect that the interference occurred regardless of task instructions as the similarity of content between speech and sentence materials was not changed. Instead, if the effect was based on the process, we would predict an interaction between background types and task instructions. The present results favor the interference-by-process hypothesis, which is consistent with the research using the short-term recall tasks.
The irrelevant speech effect(ISE) refers to the impairment of visual-information processing by background speech. Research on the ISE has focused on short-term memory for visually-presented word lists. And they favor that the ISE results from interference-by-process. The present research extends this work by using measures of eye movements to examine the effect of irrelevant speech on the identification of words during the reading of Chinese sentences. Experiment 1 was designed to explore whether the irrelevant speech interference Chinese sentence reading and the influence of semanticity of speech on reading. Participants either read sentences while being exposed to meaningful speech(from China Central Television News) or meaningless speech(the same speech scrambled to make it unintelligible) or silence. A target word of high or low lexical frequency was embedded in each sentence. The results were as follows:(1)Meaningful, but not meaningless, irrelevant speech disrupts sentence-level eye movement behavior, causing readers to make more fixations and regressions.(2)A word frequency effect was obtained in first fixation duration only for silent reading. But normal word frequency effects were observed in later measures in all reading conditions. These findings suggested that semantic content, rather than the acoustic properties of speech, interfered with reading. Furthermore, both meaningful and meaningless irrelevant speech interferes with early word identification. Experiment 2 aimed to further investigate whether the irrelevant speech effect results from interference-by-process or interference-by-content. A 3(background speech type: meaningful speech, meaningless speech, silence)×2(task instruction: normal reading, proofreading) mixed design. The background speech type was the within-subjects factor, and the task instruction was the between-subjects factor. The basic hypothesis was that if the irrelevant speech effect was due to the content, then we would expect that the interference occurred regardless of task instructions as the similarity of content between speech and sentence materials was not changed. Instead, if the effect was based on the process, we would predict an interaction between background types and task instructions. The present results favor the interference-by-process hypothesis, which is consistent with the research using the short-term recall tasks.
引文