Hedge和Marsh任务条件下的Simon效应及其反转作用机制的研究
|
摘要
刺激-反应相容性(Stimulus Response Compatibility，SRC)是心理学的一个重要的研究领域。本文所研究的Simon效应便是一种典型的空间刺激-反应相容性现象，对这种现象的系统研究有助于人类深刻理解刺激与反应之间的关系，进而了解人类信息加工的特点和规律。为了进一步探讨Simon效应及其反转的作用机制，深入了解刺激和反应之间的关系和人类信息加工的特点和规律，本研究通过改变各种实验变量以及刺激和反应之间的关系，来考察这些变量的变化对能否出现Simon效应及其反转的影响，以揭示Simon效应及其反转的作用机制。
美国心理学家Hedge和Marsh(1975)发现，当在左、右位置对刺激进行左、右按键时，刺激位置与任务无关，而在刺激位置与反应位置对应时，反应则较快。如果相关的刺激一反应匹配不相容，这个效应就会出现反转现象，即当刺激位置与反应位置对应时，反应显得更慢了。这就是所谓的Hedge和Marsh任务条件下的Simon效应的反转现象。Simon等人(1981)进行了一项研究，结果与Hedge和Marsh提出的Simon效应的反转现象相反。当相关的刺激维度为中心视觉刺激的颜色，无关的位置信息是左、右声音位置时，则并未出现Simon效应的反转。而当相关的刺激维度是视觉位置，与反应匹配不相容时，对无关的声音位置，便出现了Simon的反转。
本研究进行了4个实验来研究这一矛盾。实验以大学生为被试，采用了任务干扰的实验范式。实验过程中要求被试在尽量排除干扰刺激影响的条件下，尽可能快而准确地完成目标任务。在实验一中，相关的视觉信息是刺激的左、右位置，无关的干扰刺激是左、右耳的声音，比较相容和不相容条件下的实验结果。结果发现，当刺激一反应匹配相容时，视觉位置任务表现出正的Simon效应；在不相容的刺激-反应匹配条件下，表现出小的、Simon效应的反转。在实验二中，相关的视觉信息是中心视觉刺激的颜色，无关的干扰刺激是左、右耳的声音，进一步比较此颜色任务在相容和不相容条件下的实验结果。结果发现，当刺激-反应匹配相容时，表现出正的Simon效应，尽管对颜色信息此效应在反应时间上不显著；而当刺激-反应匹配不相容时并没有表现出Simon效应的反转。说明对无关的声音，Simon效应没有表现出反转倾向。因此，本研究在实验三中进行一个更加标准的Hedge和Marsh任务，相关维度是刺激的颜色，无关的维度是刺激的位置，观察能否得到Simon效应的反转。实验结果发现，对相容和不相容的颜色匹配，Simon效应显著，
却没有出现典型的Simon效应的反转。表明对不相容的颜色匹配，可见的视觉标记
对得到尿转是必需的。实验四重复了实验三的无关视觉位置任务，但与实验三不同
的是在显r示屏上相对应的位置明显标出反应键的颜色。结果表明，当明显标记反应
键时，则得到显著的simon效应的反转。这四个实验结果表明，显示一控制排列对
应性是引起Hedge和Marsh任务条件下的Simon效应反转的首要原因，逻辑再编
码只起到次要的作用。
综合上述实验结果，本研究得出以下结论:1、显示一控制排列对应性是产生
Hedge和Marsh任务条件下的simon效应反转的最重要因素，逻辑再编码只起到
次要的作用。2、simon效应的双重加工模型更适于对Simon效应的反转现象作出
明确合理的解释，而刺激一致性观点对此现象的解释存在一定局限性。因此就本
研究的实验结果可以断言，Simon效应及其反转依赖于反应位置的方向是否与无
关刺激位置的方向一致，也就是无关的刺激位置影响反应选择加工，Simon效应
是一种典型的反应选择现象。3、按照Simon效应的双重加工模型，Simon效应是
两个刺激一反应成分加工的结果。因此可以推断在Simon效应中，刺激编码依次
产生了自动激活过程和精细加工过程。4、simon效应及其反转的发生既有数据驱
动加工又有概念驱动加工的过程。注意机制在Sirnon效应及其反转的作用机制中
起一定作用。
Stimulus-response Compatibility is an important research field in Contemporary Psychology . Simon effect of this article researched is a typical spatial Stimulus-Response Compatibility phenomenon . Systematically research on it will favor us deeply understanding the relationship between stimulus and response , and some of the law of human information-processing . In order to explore the functional mechanism of the Simon effect and its reversal, the relationship between stimulus and response and some of the law of human information-processing , this research change all kinds of experimental variables and the relationship between stimulus and response , observe whether the Simon effect and its reversal will occur or not under the influence of these variables changed , reveal the functional mechanism of the Simon effect and its reversal.
American Psychologist Hedge and Marsh (1975) found , when left and right keys are made to stimuli in left and right locations , and stimulus location is irrelevant to the task, responses are typically faster when stimulus location corresponds with response location than it does not(the Simon effect) . This effect reverses when the relevant stimulus-response mapping is incompatible , with responses being slower when stimulus and response locations correspond , this is so-called the Hedge and Marsh reversal of the Simon effect. Simon et al.(1981)reported an exception to the Hedge and Marsh reversal for a situation in which the relevant stimulus dimension was the color of a centered visual stimulus and the irrelevant location information was left or right tone location . But the reversal of the Simon effect did not occur . In contrast, similar experiments have found a reversal of the Simon effect for tone location when relevant visual locations were mapped incompatibly to responses .
Four experiments were conducted to investigate this discrepancy . This research adopted task interference experimental paradigm , and college students were used as subjects . The subjects were asked to ignore the interference stimulus that occurred simultaneously with the visual stimulus during experiments . They were also instructed to respond as fast as possible to the visual stimulus without making too many errors . In
Experiment 1, the relevant visual information is left-right location of the stimulus, irrelevant interference stimulus is tone from one or the other ear that occurred simultaneously with the visual stimulus , comparing the results of the location task in the condition of compatible or incompatible mappings . The results showed that, when the S-R mapping was compatible , a positive Simon effect occurred ; The incompatible S-R mapping showed a small reverse Simon effect . In Experiment 2 , the relevant visual stimulus is color of a centered stimulus , irrelevant interference stimulus is tone from one or the other ear that occurred simultaneously with the visual stimulus , further comparing the performance of the color task with compatible and incompatible mappings . The results showed that, when the S-R mapping was compatible , a positive Simon effect occurred , although the effect for the color task was not significant in the RT data ; The incompatible S-R mapping showed a small positive Simon effect that did not differ reliably from that found with the compatible mapping .These findings suggest that the Simon effect for irrelevant tones does not show a tendency to reverse . Therefore, in Experiment 3 , A more standard Hedge and Marsh Two-Choice Response task were conducted , in which the relevant stimulus dimension was color and the irrelevant dimension was the location of that stimulus. Observe whether the Simon effect and its reversal was obtained or not . The results showed that, for both the compatible and incompatible S-R color mappings , the Simon effect was evident, but did not show the typical Hedge and Marsh reversal, which indicated that visible color labels may be necessary to obtain the reversal. Experiment 4 replicated Experiment 3, using irrelevant visual location task, but
美国心理学家Hedge和Marsh(1975)发现，当在左、右位置对刺激进行左、右按键时，刺激位置与任务无关，而在刺激位置与反应位置对应时，反应则较快。如果相关的刺激一反应匹配不相容，这个效应就会出现反转现象，即当刺激位置与反应位置对应时，反应显得更慢了。这就是所谓的Hedge和Marsh任务条件下的Simon效应的反转现象。Simon等人(1981)进行了一项研究，结果与Hedge和Marsh提出的Simon效应的反转现象相反。当相关的刺激维度为中心视觉刺激的颜色，无关的位置信息是左、右声音位置时，则并未出现Simon效应的反转。而当相关的刺激维度是视觉位置，与反应匹配不相容时，对无关的声音位置，便出现了Simon的反转。
本研究进行了4个实验来研究这一矛盾。实验以大学生为被试，采用了任务干扰的实验范式。实验过程中要求被试在尽量排除干扰刺激影响的条件下，尽可能快而准确地完成目标任务。在实验一中，相关的视觉信息是刺激的左、右位置，无关的干扰刺激是左、右耳的声音，比较相容和不相容条件下的实验结果。结果发现，当刺激一反应匹配相容时，视觉位置任务表现出正的Simon效应；在不相容的刺激-反应匹配条件下，表现出小的、Simon效应的反转。在实验二中，相关的视觉信息是中心视觉刺激的颜色，无关的干扰刺激是左、右耳的声音，进一步比较此颜色任务在相容和不相容条件下的实验结果。结果发现，当刺激-反应匹配相容时，表现出正的Simon效应，尽管对颜色信息此效应在反应时间上不显著；而当刺激-反应匹配不相容时并没有表现出Simon效应的反转。说明对无关的声音，Simon效应没有表现出反转倾向。因此，本研究在实验三中进行一个更加标准的Hedge和Marsh任务，相关维度是刺激的颜色，无关的维度是刺激的位置，观察能否得到Simon效应的反转。实验结果发现，对相容和不相容的颜色匹配，Simon效应显著，
却没有出现典型的Simon效应的反转。表明对不相容的颜色匹配，可见的视觉标记
对得到尿转是必需的。实验四重复了实验三的无关视觉位置任务，但与实验三不同
的是在显r示屏上相对应的位置明显标出反应键的颜色。结果表明，当明显标记反应
键时，则得到显著的simon效应的反转。这四个实验结果表明，显示一控制排列对
应性是引起Hedge和Marsh任务条件下的Simon效应反转的首要原因，逻辑再编
码只起到次要的作用。
综合上述实验结果，本研究得出以下结论:1、显示一控制排列对应性是产生
Hedge和Marsh任务条件下的simon效应反转的最重要因素，逻辑再编码只起到
次要的作用。2、simon效应的双重加工模型更适于对Simon效应的反转现象作出
明确合理的解释，而刺激一致性观点对此现象的解释存在一定局限性。因此就本
研究的实验结果可以断言，Simon效应及其反转依赖于反应位置的方向是否与无
关刺激位置的方向一致，也就是无关的刺激位置影响反应选择加工，Simon效应
是一种典型的反应选择现象。3、按照Simon效应的双重加工模型，Simon效应是
两个刺激一反应成分加工的结果。因此可以推断在Simon效应中，刺激编码依次
产生了自动激活过程和精细加工过程。4、simon效应及其反转的发生既有数据驱
动加工又有概念驱动加工的过程。注意机制在Sirnon效应及其反转的作用机制中
起一定作用。
Stimulus-response Compatibility is an important research field in Contemporary Psychology . Simon effect of this article researched is a typical spatial Stimulus-Response Compatibility phenomenon . Systematically research on it will favor us deeply understanding the relationship between stimulus and response , and some of the law of human information-processing . In order to explore the functional mechanism of the Simon effect and its reversal, the relationship between stimulus and response and some of the law of human information-processing , this research change all kinds of experimental variables and the relationship between stimulus and response , observe whether the Simon effect and its reversal will occur or not under the influence of these variables changed , reveal the functional mechanism of the Simon effect and its reversal.
American Psychologist Hedge and Marsh (1975) found , when left and right keys are made to stimuli in left and right locations , and stimulus location is irrelevant to the task, responses are typically faster when stimulus location corresponds with response location than it does not(the Simon effect) . This effect reverses when the relevant stimulus-response mapping is incompatible , with responses being slower when stimulus and response locations correspond , this is so-called the Hedge and Marsh reversal of the Simon effect. Simon et al.(1981)reported an exception to the Hedge and Marsh reversal for a situation in which the relevant stimulus dimension was the color of a centered visual stimulus and the irrelevant location information was left or right tone location . But the reversal of the Simon effect did not occur . In contrast, similar experiments have found a reversal of the Simon effect for tone location when relevant visual locations were mapped incompatibly to responses .
Four experiments were conducted to investigate this discrepancy . This research adopted task interference experimental paradigm , and college students were used as subjects . The subjects were asked to ignore the interference stimulus that occurred simultaneously with the visual stimulus during experiments . They were also instructed to respond as fast as possible to the visual stimulus without making too many errors . In
Experiment 1, the relevant visual information is left-right location of the stimulus, irrelevant interference stimulus is tone from one or the other ear that occurred simultaneously with the visual stimulus , comparing the results of the location task in the condition of compatible or incompatible mappings . The results showed that, when the S-R mapping was compatible , a positive Simon effect occurred ; The incompatible S-R mapping showed a small reverse Simon effect . In Experiment 2 , the relevant visual stimulus is color of a centered stimulus , irrelevant interference stimulus is tone from one or the other ear that occurred simultaneously with the visual stimulus , further comparing the performance of the color task with compatible and incompatible mappings . The results showed that, when the S-R mapping was compatible , a positive Simon effect occurred , although the effect for the color task was not significant in the RT data ; The incompatible S-R mapping showed a small positive Simon effect that did not differ reliably from that found with the compatible mapping .These findings suggest that the Simon effect for irrelevant tones does not show a tendency to reverse . Therefore, in Experiment 3 , A more standard Hedge and Marsh Two-Choice Response task were conducted , in which the relevant stimulus dimension was color and the irrelevant dimension was the location of that stimulus. Observe whether the Simon effect and its reversal was obtained or not . The results showed that, for both the compatible and incompatible S-R color mappings , the Simon effect was evident, but did not show the typical Hedge and Marsh reversal, which indicated that visible color labels may be necessary to obtain the reversal. Experiment 4 replicated Experiment 3, using irrelevant visual location task, but
引文
[1] Amedeo D'Angiulli, Mental image generation and the contrast sensitivity function, Cognition, 2002, 85, B11-B19.
[2] Bernhard Hommel, Beatrix Eglau, Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance, Psychological Research, 2002, 66, 260-273.
[3] Bernhard Hommel, Stumulus-Response Compatibility and the Simon Effect: Toward an Empirical Clarification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1995, 21 (4), 764-775.
[4] Bernhard Hommel, Conflict versus misguided search as explanation of S-R correspondence effects, Acta Psychologica, 1995, 89, 37-51.
[5] Bernhard Hommel, S-R Compatibility Effects Without Response Uncertainty, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1996, 49A(3), 546-571.
[6] Bertrand L.Deputte, Sandrine Pelletier, Stephane Barbe, Visual categorization of natural and abstract items in forest monkeys and humans, Behavioural Processes, 2001, 55, 51-64.
[7] Boris Burle. Camille Possamai. Franck Vidal Michel Bonnet. Thierry Hasbroucq, Exective control in the Simon effect: an electromyographic and distributional analysis, Psychological Research, 2002, 66, 324-336.
[8] Bradley S. Peterson, Michael J.Kane, Gerianne M. Alexander, CheryI Lacadie, An event-related functional MRI study comparing interference effects in the Simon and Stroop tasks, Cognitive Brain Research, 2002, 13, 427-440.
[9] Christopher L.Niebauer, A Possible Connection between Categorical and Coordinate Spatial Relation Respresentations, Brain and Cognition, 2001, 47. 434-445.
[10] Daniela Mapelli, Elena Rusconi, Carlo Umilta, The SNARC effect: an instance of the Simon effect?, Cognition, 2003, 88, B1-B10.
[11] Dario D.Salvucci, An integrated model of eye movements and visual encoding, Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 2001, 1, 201-220.
[12] David P.Baker, Christopher F.Chabris, and Stephen M.Kosslyn, Encoding Categorical and Coordinate Spatial Relations Without Input-Output Correlations: New Simulation Models, cognitive science, 1999, 23 (1), 33-51.
[13] Dennis D.Kerkman, Justin C.Wise, Elizabeth A.Harwood, Impossible "mental
rotation" problems A mismeasure of women'spatial abilities? Learning and Individual Differences, 2000, 12, 253-269.
[14] Dora I.Burin, Ana R. Delgado Y Gerardo Prieto, Solution strategies and differences in spatial visualization tasks, Psychologica, 2000, 21, 275-286.
[15] Edmund Wascher, Meike Reinhard, Bemd Wauschkuhn, and Rolf Verleger, Spatial S-R Compatibility with Centrally Presented Stimuli: An Event-Related Asymmetry Study on Dimensional Overlap, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1999, 11 (2), 214-229.
[16] E.J.Stoffels, On stage robustness and response selection routes: Further evidence, Aeta Psychologica, 1996, 91, 67-88.
[17] Eric Buckolz, Cam O'Donnell, Jim MeAuliffe, The Simon effect: Evidence of a response proeessing"funetional locus", Human Movement Science, 1996, 15, 543-564.
[18] Evert-Jan Stoffels, Uncertainty and processing routes in the selection of a response: A S-R compatibility study, Acta Psychologica, 1996, 94, 227-252.
[19] Fred W.Mast, Stephen M.Kosslyn, Visual mental images can be ambiguous: insights from individual differences in spatial transformation abilities, Cognition, 2002, 86, 57-70.
[20] F.Valle-Inclan, The Simon effect and its reversal studied with event-related potentials, International Journal of Psychophysiology, 1996, 23, 41-53.
[21] F.Valle-Inclan, The locus of interference in the Simon effect: an ERP study, Biological Psychology, 1996, 43, 147-162.
[22] Harry Zhang, The Simon Effect and Its Reversal in Three-Choice Hedge and Marsh Tasks: Evidence for Irrelevant Stimulus-Response Compatibility and Stimulus Congruity, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2000, 26(3), 1018-1037.
[23] Huazhong (Harry), Jun Zhang, Sylvan Komblum, A Parallel Distributed Processing Model of Stimulus-Stimulus and Stimulus-Response Compatibility, Cognitive Psychology, 1999, 38, 386-432.
[24] Jan Theeuwes, Arthur F. Kramer, Paul Atchley, Spatial attention in early vision, Acta Psychologica, 2001, 108, 1-20.
[25] Jason Ivanoff, On spatial response code activition in a Simon task, Acta Psychologica, 2003, 112, 157-179.
[26] Jason Ivanoff. Michael Peters, A shift of attention may be necessary, but it is not sufficient, for the generation of the Simon effect, Psychological Research, 2000, 64, 117-135.
[27] Jeferey P. Toth, Brain Levine, Donald T. Stuss, Alfred Oh, Dissociation of Processing Underlying Spatial S-R Compatibility: Evidence for the Independent Influence of What and Where, Consciousness and Cognition, 1995, 4, 483-501.
[28] Jos J. Adam, The additivity of stimulus-response compatibility with perceptual and motor factors in a visual choice reaction time task, Acta Psychologica, 2000, 105, 1-7.
[29] Julie Gerred Marble and Robert W.Proctor, Mixing Location-Relevant and Location-irrelevant Choice-Reaction Tasks: Influence of Location Mapping on the Simon Effect, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2000, 26(5), 1515-1533.
[30] Jun Zhang and Sylvan Kornblum, Distributional Analysis and DeJong, Liang, and Larber's(1994)Dual-Process Model of the Simon Effect, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1997, 23(5), 1543-1551.
[31] L.Elizabeth Crawford, Terry Regier, Janellen Huttenloeher, Linguistie and non-ling-uistic spatial categorization, Cognition, 2000, 75, 209-235.
[32] Manuel J.Blanco, David Soto, Effects of spatial attention on detection and inentification of oriented lines, Acta Psychologica, 2002, 109, 195-212.
[33] Marcel Brass, Harold Bekkering, Wolfgang Prinz, Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task, Acta Psychologica, 2001, 106, 3-22.
[34] Mark Wexler, Stephen M.Kosslyn, Alain Berthoz, Motor processes in mental rotation, Cognition, 1998, 68, 77-94.
[35] Martin Eimer, Bernhard Hommel, Wolfgang Prinz, S-R compatibility and response selection, Acta Psychologica, 1995, 90, 301-313.
[36] Michael A.Khan, Gavin Lawrence, Alissa Fourkas, Ian M.Franks, Digby Elliott, Samantha, Pembroke, Online versus offline processing of visual feedback in the control of movement amplitude, Acta Psychologica, 2003, 113, 83-97.
[37] Michael Tlauka, Frank P. McKenna, Mental imagery yields stimulus-response compatibility, Acta Psychologica, 1998, 98, 67-79.
[38] Nicholas J. Cepeda, Arthur F. Kramer, Strategic effects on object-based attentional selection, Acta Psychologica, 1999, 103, 1-19.
[39] Paul Dassonville, Scott M.Lewis, Heather E.Foster, James Ashe, Choice and
stimulus-response compatibility affect duration of response selection, Cognitive Brain Research, 1999, 7, 235-240.
[40] Peter Walker and Graham J.Hitch et al., The respresentation of nonstructural information in visual memory: Evidence from image combination, Memory & Cognition, 1997, 25(4), 484-491.
[41] Raymond Bruyer, Jean-Christophe Scailquin, The visuospatial sketchpaad for mental images: Testing the multicomponent model of working memory, Acta Psyehologica, 1998, 98, 17-36.
[42] Rebecca Lawson, Pierre Jolicoeur, Recognition thresholds for plane-rotated pictures of familiar objects, Acta Psychologica, 2003, 112, 17-41.
[43] Robert W. Proctor, Huifang Wang, Enhancement of the Simon effect by response-location precues: Evaluation of the stimulus-identification account, Acta Psychoiogica, 1997, 95, 279-298.
[44] Robert W. Proctor, David F. Pick, Display-control arrangement correspondence and logical recoding in the Hedge and Marsh reversal of the Simon effect, Acta Psychologica, 2003, 112, 259-278.
[45] Robert W. Proctor. Julie Gerred Marble Kim-Phuong L.Vu, Mixing incompatibly mapped location-relevant trials with location-irrelevant trials: effects of stimulus mode on the reverse Simon effect, Psychological Research, 2000, 64, 11-24.
[46] Robert W.Proctor, Chen-Hui Lu, Huifang Wang, Addie Dutta, Activation of response codes by relevant and irrelevant stimulus information, Acta Psychologica, 1995, 90, 275-286.
[47] Rogier Landman, Henk Spekreijse, Victor A.F.Lamme, Large capacity storage of integrated objects before change blindness, Vision Research, 2003, 43, 149-164.
[48] Roland Baddeley, The Correlational Structure of Natural Images and the Calibration of Spatial Respresentations, Cognitive Science, 1997, 21 (3), 351-372.
[49] Romle Rouw, Stephen M.Kosslyn, Ronald Hamel, Detecting high-level and low-level properties in visual images and visual percepts, Cognition, 1997, 63, 209-226.
[50] Sandro Rubichi. Roberto Nicoletti. Carlo Umilta Marco Zorzi, Response strategies and the Simon effect, Psychological Research, 2000, 63, 129-136.
[51] Shai Danziger, The effects of endogenous attention and stimulus onsets on encoding target location, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2002, 55A(3), 987-1006.
[52] Stephan F. Taylor, Sylvan Kornblum et al., Isolation of Specific Interference Processing in the Stroop Task: Pet Activation Studies, Neuroimage, 1997, 6, 81-92.
[53] Wilfried Kunde and Christian Stocker, A Simon effect for stimulus-response duration, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2002, 55A(2), 581-592.
[54] Wim Notebaert. Eric Soetens. Annemie Melis, Sequential analysis of a Simon task-evidence for an attention-shift account, Psychological Research, 2001, 65, 170-184.
[55] Yaffa Yeshurun, Marisa Carrasco, Spatial attention improves performance in spatial resolution tasks, Vision Research, 1999, 39, 293-306.
[56] Yang Seok Cho and Robert W. Proctor, Stimulus and response representations undedying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2003, 10, 1, 45-73.
[57] 舒华，《心理与教育研究中的多因素实验设计》，北京师范大学出版社，2000年11月．
[58] 王苏，《认知心理学》，北京大学出版社，1992年4月．
[59] 王苏斌等，《SPSS统计分析》，机械工业出版社，2003年6月．
[60] 朱滢，《实验心理学》，北京大学出版社，2000年7月．
[61] 丁锦红、林仲贤，平滑运动条件下的图形颜色及形状加工特性的研究，心理科学，1998．21(1)，5-8．
[62] 高文斌、罗跃嘉，视觉空间注意的事件相关电位研究，心理科学进展，2002，10(4)，361-366．
[63] 耿海燕、李云峰，分散和集中注意条件下的Stroop效应：意识的影响，北京大学学报，2002，38(3)，421-426．
[64] 郭定、朱祖祥，提示引导空间注意对范畴目标识别影响的研究，人类工效学，1995，1(2)，8-13．
[65] 何海东、丁锦红，整体与部件表征在物体图形识别中的作用，心理学报，2000，32(2)，152-157．
[66] 韩世辉、肖峰，影响视觉复合刺激中整体和局部性质加工的几种因素，心理学报，1999，31(3)，274-283．
[67] 韩世辉，视觉信息加工中的整体优先性，心理学报，2000，32(3)，337-347．
[68] 金志成、陈骐，空间选择性注意研究的新进展，心理科学，2000，23(6)，710-714．
[69] 金志成、陈彩琦，选择性注意的分心物加工机制对工作记忆的影响，心理学
报，2001，33(6)，495-499．
[70] 刘艳芳、张侃，前置线索与刺激语义相容性的实验研究，心理学报，1999，31(3)，299-305．
[71] 刘艳芳，S—R相容性：概念、分类、理论假设及应用，心理科学，1996，19(2)，105-109．
[72] 刘艳芳，S—R相容性的最新理论研究，心理科学，1998，21(6)，562-563．
[73] 刘艳芳、张侃，工效学原则与刺激-反应相容性原理，人类工效学，1996，5(2)，38-41．
[74] 刘艳芳、张侃，两类线索相容性的比较研究，心理学报，2001，33(2)，132-136．
[75] 刘艳芳、张侃，刺激-反应相容性的度量与运用，心理学报，1997，29(1)，91-97．
[76] 牟炜民、张侃等，反应选择和反应组织影响因素的实验研究，心理学报，1999，31(4)，411-417。
[77] 牟炜民、张侃等，空间相对位置效应的时间特征，心理学报，2001，33(1)，24-29．
[78] 牟炜民、张侃等，身体转向模式对方位效应和相对位置效应的影响，心理学报，2000，32(1)，45-48．
[79] 牟炜民、张侃等，想向空间中物体搜索的方位效应和注意效应，心理学报，1999，31(3)，291-298．
[80] 牟炜民、张侃等，想向空间中物体搜索的阶段模型的证实，心理学报，2000，32(1)，40-44．
[81] 钱秀莹、李传，Stroop效应及其脑机制研究概述，心理学探新，2003，23(87)，33-36．
[82] 孙向红、张侃等，次要任务输入方式对操作绩效和心理负荷的影响，心理学报，1998，30(3)，343-347．
[83] 王才康，Stroop其人Stroop效应，心理科学，1994，17(4)，232-236．
[84] 吴昌旭、张侃，人-计算机界面可用性评价方法，心理科学，2001，24(6)，727-728．
[85] 杨华海、张侃等，外源性视觉空间选择性注意的时空特征，心理学报，1998，30(2)，136-141．
[86] 杨华海、张侃等，内源性和外源性性视觉空间选择注意，心理科学，1998，21(2)，150-152．
[87] 游旭群、杨治良，视觉表象扫描加工可塑性水平的研究，心理科学，2002，
25(1)，18-21．
[88] 游旭群、杨治良，视觉表象扫描加工可塑性水平的研究，心理科学，2002，25(1)，18-21．
[89] 游旭群、杨治良，视觉空间关系识别中的认知加工特性，心理学报，2002，34(4)，344-350．
[90] 张达人，选择性注意和起动效应的反转，心理学报，1994，26(2)，141-146．
[91] 张达人、张鹏远等，感知负载对干扰效应和负启动效应的影响，心理学报，1998，30(1)，7-13．
[92] 张侃、刘艳芳，线索-反应相容性效应和线索有效概率的影响，心理学报，1999，31(4)，405-410．
[93] 张明、陈骐，任务需求对基于位置的返回抑制和基于颜色的重复劣势效应的影响，心理学报，2002，34(5)，462-469．
[94] 张明、金志成等，前、后注意网络的关系—返回抑制和Stroop效应，心理科学，2003，26(4)，638-641．
[95] 赵晨、张侃等，内源性注意与外源性注意的跨通道比较，心理学报，2001，33(3)，219-224．
[96] 赵晨、张侃，自然的人-计交互方式，人类工效学，2000，6(3)，40-42．
[97] 朱祖祥、王健，分散空间注意条件下客体特征一致性对视觉特征错觉性结合的影响，心理科学，1998，21(5)，385-389．
[98] 庄建程、张侃等，汉字部件与英文字母相容性的数字模型——一种群体模版相容性的数字表达，心理学报，1998，30(2)143-148．
[2] Bernhard Hommel, Beatrix Eglau, Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance, Psychological Research, 2002, 66, 260-273.
[3] Bernhard Hommel, Stumulus-Response Compatibility and the Simon Effect: Toward an Empirical Clarification, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1995, 21 (4), 764-775.
[4] Bernhard Hommel, Conflict versus misguided search as explanation of S-R correspondence effects, Acta Psychologica, 1995, 89, 37-51.
[5] Bernhard Hommel, S-R Compatibility Effects Without Response Uncertainty, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1996, 49A(3), 546-571.
[6] Bertrand L.Deputte, Sandrine Pelletier, Stephane Barbe, Visual categorization of natural and abstract items in forest monkeys and humans, Behavioural Processes, 2001, 55, 51-64.
[7] Boris Burle. Camille Possamai. Franck Vidal Michel Bonnet. Thierry Hasbroucq, Exective control in the Simon effect: an electromyographic and distributional analysis, Psychological Research, 2002, 66, 324-336.
[8] Bradley S. Peterson, Michael J.Kane, Gerianne M. Alexander, CheryI Lacadie, An event-related functional MRI study comparing interference effects in the Simon and Stroop tasks, Cognitive Brain Research, 2002, 13, 427-440.
[9] Christopher L.Niebauer, A Possible Connection between Categorical and Coordinate Spatial Relation Respresentations, Brain and Cognition, 2001, 47. 434-445.
[10] Daniela Mapelli, Elena Rusconi, Carlo Umilta, The SNARC effect: an instance of the Simon effect?, Cognition, 2003, 88, B1-B10.
[11] Dario D.Salvucci, An integrated model of eye movements and visual encoding, Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 2001, 1, 201-220.
[12] David P.Baker, Christopher F.Chabris, and Stephen M.Kosslyn, Encoding Categorical and Coordinate Spatial Relations Without Input-Output Correlations: New Simulation Models, cognitive science, 1999, 23 (1), 33-51.
[13] Dennis D.Kerkman, Justin C.Wise, Elizabeth A.Harwood, Impossible "mental
rotation" problems A mismeasure of women'spatial abilities? Learning and Individual Differences, 2000, 12, 253-269.
[14] Dora I.Burin, Ana R. Delgado Y Gerardo Prieto, Solution strategies and differences in spatial visualization tasks, Psychologica, 2000, 21, 275-286.
[15] Edmund Wascher, Meike Reinhard, Bemd Wauschkuhn, and Rolf Verleger, Spatial S-R Compatibility with Centrally Presented Stimuli: An Event-Related Asymmetry Study on Dimensional Overlap, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1999, 11 (2), 214-229.
[16] E.J.Stoffels, On stage robustness and response selection routes: Further evidence, Aeta Psychologica, 1996, 91, 67-88.
[17] Eric Buckolz, Cam O'Donnell, Jim MeAuliffe, The Simon effect: Evidence of a response proeessing"funetional locus", Human Movement Science, 1996, 15, 543-564.
[18] Evert-Jan Stoffels, Uncertainty and processing routes in the selection of a response: A S-R compatibility study, Acta Psychologica, 1996, 94, 227-252.
[19] Fred W.Mast, Stephen M.Kosslyn, Visual mental images can be ambiguous: insights from individual differences in spatial transformation abilities, Cognition, 2002, 86, 57-70.
[20] F.Valle-Inclan, The Simon effect and its reversal studied with event-related potentials, International Journal of Psychophysiology, 1996, 23, 41-53.
[21] F.Valle-Inclan, The locus of interference in the Simon effect: an ERP study, Biological Psychology, 1996, 43, 147-162.
[22] Harry Zhang, The Simon Effect and Its Reversal in Three-Choice Hedge and Marsh Tasks: Evidence for Irrelevant Stimulus-Response Compatibility and Stimulus Congruity, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2000, 26(3), 1018-1037.
[23] Huazhong (Harry), Jun Zhang, Sylvan Komblum, A Parallel Distributed Processing Model of Stimulus-Stimulus and Stimulus-Response Compatibility, Cognitive Psychology, 1999, 38, 386-432.
[24] Jan Theeuwes, Arthur F. Kramer, Paul Atchley, Spatial attention in early vision, Acta Psychologica, 2001, 108, 1-20.
[25] Jason Ivanoff, On spatial response code activition in a Simon task, Acta Psychologica, 2003, 112, 157-179.
[26] Jason Ivanoff. Michael Peters, A shift of attention may be necessary, but it is not sufficient, for the generation of the Simon effect, Psychological Research, 2000, 64, 117-135.
[27] Jeferey P. Toth, Brain Levine, Donald T. Stuss, Alfred Oh, Dissociation of Processing Underlying Spatial S-R Compatibility: Evidence for the Independent Influence of What and Where, Consciousness and Cognition, 1995, 4, 483-501.
[28] Jos J. Adam, The additivity of stimulus-response compatibility with perceptual and motor factors in a visual choice reaction time task, Acta Psychologica, 2000, 105, 1-7.
[29] Julie Gerred Marble and Robert W.Proctor, Mixing Location-Relevant and Location-irrelevant Choice-Reaction Tasks: Influence of Location Mapping on the Simon Effect, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2000, 26(5), 1515-1533.
[30] Jun Zhang and Sylvan Kornblum, Distributional Analysis and DeJong, Liang, and Larber's(1994)Dual-Process Model of the Simon Effect, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1997, 23(5), 1543-1551.
[31] L.Elizabeth Crawford, Terry Regier, Janellen Huttenloeher, Linguistie and non-ling-uistic spatial categorization, Cognition, 2000, 75, 209-235.
[32] Manuel J.Blanco, David Soto, Effects of spatial attention on detection and inentification of oriented lines, Acta Psychologica, 2002, 109, 195-212.
[33] Marcel Brass, Harold Bekkering, Wolfgang Prinz, Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task, Acta Psychologica, 2001, 106, 3-22.
[34] Mark Wexler, Stephen M.Kosslyn, Alain Berthoz, Motor processes in mental rotation, Cognition, 1998, 68, 77-94.
[35] Martin Eimer, Bernhard Hommel, Wolfgang Prinz, S-R compatibility and response selection, Acta Psychologica, 1995, 90, 301-313.
[36] Michael A.Khan, Gavin Lawrence, Alissa Fourkas, Ian M.Franks, Digby Elliott, Samantha, Pembroke, Online versus offline processing of visual feedback in the control of movement amplitude, Acta Psychologica, 2003, 113, 83-97.
[37] Michael Tlauka, Frank P. McKenna, Mental imagery yields stimulus-response compatibility, Acta Psychologica, 1998, 98, 67-79.
[38] Nicholas J. Cepeda, Arthur F. Kramer, Strategic effects on object-based attentional selection, Acta Psychologica, 1999, 103, 1-19.
[39] Paul Dassonville, Scott M.Lewis, Heather E.Foster, James Ashe, Choice and
stimulus-response compatibility affect duration of response selection, Cognitive Brain Research, 1999, 7, 235-240.
[40] Peter Walker and Graham J.Hitch et al., The respresentation of nonstructural information in visual memory: Evidence from image combination, Memory & Cognition, 1997, 25(4), 484-491.
[41] Raymond Bruyer, Jean-Christophe Scailquin, The visuospatial sketchpaad for mental images: Testing the multicomponent model of working memory, Acta Psyehologica, 1998, 98, 17-36.
[42] Rebecca Lawson, Pierre Jolicoeur, Recognition thresholds for plane-rotated pictures of familiar objects, Acta Psychologica, 2003, 112, 17-41.
[43] Robert W. Proctor, Huifang Wang, Enhancement of the Simon effect by response-location precues: Evaluation of the stimulus-identification account, Acta Psychoiogica, 1997, 95, 279-298.
[44] Robert W. Proctor, David F. Pick, Display-control arrangement correspondence and logical recoding in the Hedge and Marsh reversal of the Simon effect, Acta Psychologica, 2003, 112, 259-278.
[45] Robert W. Proctor. Julie Gerred Marble Kim-Phuong L.Vu, Mixing incompatibly mapped location-relevant trials with location-irrelevant trials: effects of stimulus mode on the reverse Simon effect, Psychological Research, 2000, 64, 11-24.
[46] Robert W.Proctor, Chen-Hui Lu, Huifang Wang, Addie Dutta, Activation of response codes by relevant and irrelevant stimulus information, Acta Psychologica, 1995, 90, 275-286.
[47] Rogier Landman, Henk Spekreijse, Victor A.F.Lamme, Large capacity storage of integrated objects before change blindness, Vision Research, 2003, 43, 149-164.
[48] Roland Baddeley, The Correlational Structure of Natural Images and the Calibration of Spatial Respresentations, Cognitive Science, 1997, 21 (3), 351-372.
[49] Romle Rouw, Stephen M.Kosslyn, Ronald Hamel, Detecting high-level and low-level properties in visual images and visual percepts, Cognition, 1997, 63, 209-226.
[50] Sandro Rubichi. Roberto Nicoletti. Carlo Umilta Marco Zorzi, Response strategies and the Simon effect, Psychological Research, 2000, 63, 129-136.
[51] Shai Danziger, The effects of endogenous attention and stimulus onsets on encoding target location, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2002, 55A(3), 987-1006.
[52] Stephan F. Taylor, Sylvan Kornblum et al., Isolation of Specific Interference Processing in the Stroop Task: Pet Activation Studies, Neuroimage, 1997, 6, 81-92.
[53] Wilfried Kunde and Christian Stocker, A Simon effect for stimulus-response duration, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2002, 55A(2), 581-592.
[54] Wim Notebaert. Eric Soetens. Annemie Melis, Sequential analysis of a Simon task-evidence for an attention-shift account, Psychological Research, 2001, 65, 170-184.
[55] Yaffa Yeshurun, Marisa Carrasco, Spatial attention improves performance in spatial resolution tasks, Vision Research, 1999, 39, 293-306.
[56] Yang Seok Cho and Robert W. Proctor, Stimulus and response representations undedying orthogonal stimulus-response compatibility effects, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2003, 10, 1, 45-73.
[57] 舒华，《心理与教育研究中的多因素实验设计》，北京师范大学出版社，2000年11月．
[58] 王苏，《认知心理学》，北京大学出版社，1992年4月．
[59] 王苏斌等，《SPSS统计分析》，机械工业出版社，2003年6月．
[60] 朱滢，《实验心理学》，北京大学出版社，2000年7月．
[61] 丁锦红、林仲贤，平滑运动条件下的图形颜色及形状加工特性的研究，心理科学，1998．21(1)，5-8．
[62] 高文斌、罗跃嘉，视觉空间注意的事件相关电位研究，心理科学进展，2002，10(4)，361-366．
[63] 耿海燕、李云峰，分散和集中注意条件下的Stroop效应：意识的影响，北京大学学报，2002，38(3)，421-426．
[64] 郭定、朱祖祥，提示引导空间注意对范畴目标识别影响的研究，人类工效学，1995，1(2)，8-13．
[65] 何海东、丁锦红，整体与部件表征在物体图形识别中的作用，心理学报，2000，32(2)，152-157．
[66] 韩世辉、肖峰，影响视觉复合刺激中整体和局部性质加工的几种因素，心理学报，1999，31(3)，274-283．
[67] 韩世辉，视觉信息加工中的整体优先性，心理学报，2000，32(3)，337-347．
[68] 金志成、陈骐，空间选择性注意研究的新进展，心理科学，2000，23(6)，710-714．
[69] 金志成、陈彩琦，选择性注意的分心物加工机制对工作记忆的影响，心理学
报，2001，33(6)，495-499．
[70] 刘艳芳、张侃，前置线索与刺激语义相容性的实验研究，心理学报，1999，31(3)，299-305．
[71] 刘艳芳，S—R相容性：概念、分类、理论假设及应用，心理科学，1996，19(2)，105-109．
[72] 刘艳芳，S—R相容性的最新理论研究，心理科学，1998，21(6)，562-563．
[73] 刘艳芳、张侃，工效学原则与刺激-反应相容性原理，人类工效学，1996，5(2)，38-41．
[74] 刘艳芳、张侃，两类线索相容性的比较研究，心理学报，2001，33(2)，132-136．
[75] 刘艳芳、张侃，刺激-反应相容性的度量与运用，心理学报，1997，29(1)，91-97．
[76] 牟炜民、张侃等，反应选择和反应组织影响因素的实验研究，心理学报，1999，31(4)，411-417。
[77] 牟炜民、张侃等，空间相对位置效应的时间特征，心理学报，2001，33(1)，24-29．
[78] 牟炜民、张侃等，身体转向模式对方位效应和相对位置效应的影响，心理学报，2000，32(1)，45-48．
[79] 牟炜民、张侃等，想向空间中物体搜索的方位效应和注意效应，心理学报，1999，31(3)，291-298．
[80] 牟炜民、张侃等，想向空间中物体搜索的阶段模型的证实，心理学报，2000，32(1)，40-44．
[81] 钱秀莹、李传，Stroop效应及其脑机制研究概述，心理学探新，2003，23(87)，33-36．
[82] 孙向红、张侃等，次要任务输入方式对操作绩效和心理负荷的影响，心理学报，1998，30(3)，343-347．
[83] 王才康，Stroop其人Stroop效应，心理科学，1994，17(4)，232-236．
[84] 吴昌旭、张侃，人-计算机界面可用性评价方法，心理科学，2001，24(6)，727-728．
[85] 杨华海、张侃等，外源性视觉空间选择性注意的时空特征，心理学报，1998，30(2)，136-141．
[86] 杨华海、张侃等，内源性和外源性性视觉空间选择注意，心理科学，1998，21(2)，150-152．
[87] 游旭群、杨治良，视觉表象扫描加工可塑性水平的研究，心理科学，2002，
25(1)，18-21．
[88] 游旭群、杨治良，视觉表象扫描加工可塑性水平的研究，心理科学，2002，25(1)，18-21．
[89] 游旭群、杨治良，视觉空间关系识别中的认知加工特性，心理学报，2002，34(4)，344-350．
[90] 张达人，选择性注意和起动效应的反转，心理学报，1994，26(2)，141-146．
[91] 张达人、张鹏远等，感知负载对干扰效应和负启动效应的影响，心理学报，1998，30(1)，7-13．
[92] 张侃、刘艳芳，线索-反应相容性效应和线索有效概率的影响，心理学报，1999，31(4)，405-410．
[93] 张明、陈骐，任务需求对基于位置的返回抑制和基于颜色的重复劣势效应的影响，心理学报，2002，34(5)，462-469．
[94] 张明、金志成等，前、后注意网络的关系—返回抑制和Stroop效应，心理科学，2003，26(4)，638-641．
[95] 赵晨、张侃等，内源性注意与外源性注意的跨通道比较，心理学报，2001，33(3)，219-224．
[96] 赵晨、张侃，自然的人-计交互方式，人类工效学，2000，6(3)，40-42．
[97] 朱祖祥、王健，分散空间注意条件下客体特征一致性对视觉特征错觉性结合的影响，心理科学，1998，21(5)，385-389．
[98] 庄建程、张侃等，汉字部件与英文字母相容性的数字模型——一种群体模版相容性的数字表达，心理学报，1998，30(2)143-148．