摘要
研究通过一系列实验考察了基于客体朝向的刺激-反应一致效应(Stimulus-Response Compatibility,SRC),发现朝向(45°/135°)与反应方式(左/右)之间可形成一致或不一致的空间匹配关系,进而促进或干扰行为反应的发生。同时研究也探讨了注意对此类效应的影响,结果发现:1)单个刺激局部朝向或由多个刺激组成的“知觉客体”整体朝向均可诱发刺激-反应一致效应,但自上而下的注意控制在其中扮演着决定性作用;2)客体朝向是通过诱发注意转移进而自动激活空间编码,最终导致了刺激-反应一致效应的产生。
实验一在屏幕中央呈现具有倾斜朝向(45°/135°)的Gabor patch,要求被试通过左右按键判断其对比度高低。结果发现,左手对45°朝向目标的反应显著快于其对135°朝向目标的反应,而右手反应呈现相反模式,即为一种基于客体朝向的SRC效应,表明单纯的客体朝向在认知系统中具有对应的空间表征;
实验二通过加入侧翼刺激,并使其与中央刺激可形成具有整体朝向的“知觉客体”,结果发现“知觉客体”整体朝向不影响基于单个刺激局部朝向的SRC效应;实验三则进一步证实,即使在侧翼刺激明显得到认知加工时,基于单个刺激局部朝向的SRC效应仍旧不受“知觉客体”整体朝向的影响。相反,当在实验四中将任务改为对“知觉客体”进行认知加工时,则出现了基于“知觉客体”整体朝向的SRC效应,而此时单个刺激的朝向亦不影响基于整体朝向的SRC效应。由此,实验二、三、四表明自上而下的注意控制对朝向属性是否能够自动激活空间编码进而诱发基于客体朝向的SRC效应具有决定性作用。
同时,实验四采用眼动仪追踪了被试的眼睛运动轨迹,结果发现,当“知觉客体”整体朝向为45°(或135°)时,出现更多的“向左”眼跳(或“向右”眼跳)。鉴于前人研究已证实眼跳与注意转移具有密切联系,此眼动数据结果表明,朝向属性是通过诱发注意转移来自动激活相关空间编码进而产生SRC效应。
The current research investigated an orientation-based Stimulus-Response Compatibility (SRC) effect and found that the relationship between the angled orientation of objects (45°/135°) and response attributes (left/right) could facilitate or interfere with the behavioral output. Meanwhile, the research also examined the influence of attention on this SRC effect, and found 1) either the local orientation of a single stimulus or the global orientation of a“perceptual object”grouped by multiple stimuli can induce the orientation-based SRC effect, in which the top-down attentional control plays a vital role; 2) via inducing a corresponding attentional shift, the object orientation automatically activates a spatial response code and finally leads to the generation of the orientation-based SRC effect.
In Experiment 1, a Gabor patch, with an angled orientation of either 45°or 135°, was presented at the center of the screen. Participants were asked to respond to its luminance contrast (high/low) by pressing a left or right button. Results revealed that, left-hand responses to 45°-angled targets were much faster than that to 135°-angled targets, whereas right-hand responses showed a reversed pattern. These results well demonstrates an SRC effect based on object angled orientation and further indicates that, angled orientations have implicit spatial representations in cognitive system.
In Experiment 2, four flankers were added and a“perceptual object”with a global orientation could be perceived based on perceptual grouping principles. Results showed the global orientation of the“perceptual object”failed to influence the SRC effect based on the local orientation of the single stimulus; Further investigation was conducted in Experiment 3 and showed that, even though flankers were obviously processed, the local-orientation-based SRC effect remained unaffected by the global orientation of the“perceptual object”. On the contrary, in Experiment 4, when participants were asked to make a cognitive discrimination on the“perceptual object”(judge the grouping type), an SRC effect based on its global orientation appeared and received no influence by the local orientation of the single stimulus. In brief, the results in Experiment 2 to 4 indicate that, the top-down attentional control plays a decisive role in the generation of the orientation-based SRC effect.
Meanwhile, eye-tracking technology was employed in Experiment 4 to track the eye-movements during the cognitive process. Results presented that, more“left”saccades were found when the global orientation was 45°, whereas more“right”saccades were shown when the global orientation was 135°. Considering the previous findings that explicit saccades and implicit attentional shift are highly associated, the eye-tracking results indicate that, the orientation attribute of the stimulus automatically induces an attentional shift which activates a corresponding spatial response code and finally leads to the orientation-based SRC effect.
引文
Ansorge, U. (2003a). Influences of response-activating stimuli and passage of time on the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 67, 174-183.
Ansorge, U. (2003b). Spatial Simon effects and compatibility effects induced by observed gaze direction. Visual Cognition, 10(3), 363-383.
B?chtold, D., Baumüller, M., & Brugger, P. (1998). Stimulus-response compatibility in representational space. Neuropsychologia, 36(8), 731-735.
Berlucchi, G., Crea, F., Di Stefano, M., & Tassinari, G. (1977). Influence of spatial stimulus-response compatibility on reaction time of ipsilateral and contralateral hand to lateralized light stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3(3), 505-517.
Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Kerzel, D. (2004). A Simon effect with stationary moving stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(1), 39-55.
Brefczynski, J. A., & DeYoe, E. A. (1999). A physiological correlate of the "spotlight" of visual attention. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 370-374.
Buhmann, I. & Wascher, E. (2006). Intentional pre-cueing does not influence the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 70, 117-124.
Chan, K. W. L., Chan, A. H. S., & Courtney, A. J. (2001). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility in vertical dimension: implications for interface design, in: Proceedings of the Sixth Pan Pacific Conference on Occupational Ergonomics, Occupational Ergonomics, Beijing, 31-36.
Chan, K. W. L. & Chan, A. H. S. (2005). Spatial S-R compatibility of visual and auditory signals: Implications for human-machine interface design. Displays, 26, 109-119.
Chua, R., Weeks, D. J., Ricker, K. L., & Poon, P. (2001). Influence of operator orientation on relative organizational mapping and spatial compatibility. Ergonomics, 44, 751-765.
Daar, M., & Pratt, J. (2008). Digits affect actions: The SNARC effect and response selection. Cortex, 44(4), 400-405.
Danckert, J., & Goodale, M. A. (2001). Superior performance for visually guided pointing in the lower visual field. Experimental Brain Research, 137, 303-308.
De Jong, R., Liang, C. C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(4), 731-750.
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371-396.
Eimer, M. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and automatic response activation: evidence from psychophysiological studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 837-854.
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143-149.
Fias, W., Brysbaert, M., Geypens, F., & d'Ydewalle, G. (1996). The importance of magnitude information in numerical processing: evidence from the SNARC effect. Mathematical Cognition, 2(1), 95-110.
Fias, W., Lauwereyns, J., & Lammertyn, J. (2001). Irrelevant digits affect feature-based attention depending on the overlap of neural circuits. Cognitive Brain Research, 12, 415-423.
Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S-R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements with stimulus and response codes. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology, 48, 483-493.
Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (1998). The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 490-495.
Genzano, V. R., Di Nocera, F., & Ferlazzo, F. (2001). Upper/lower visual field asymmetry on a spatial relocation memory task. Neuroreport, 12, 1227-1230.
Gevers, W., Lammertyn, J., Notebaert, W., Verguts, T., & Fias, W. (2006). Automatic response activation of implicit spatial information: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Acta Psychologica, 122(3), 221-233.
Hommel, B. (1993). The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap. Psychological Research, 55, 280-290.
Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1368-1384.
Kornblum, S. (1994). The way irrelevant dimensions are processed depends on what they overlap with: The case of Stroop- and Simon-like stimuli. Psychological Research, 56, 130-135.
Kornblum, S., & Lee, J. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 855-875.
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
Kunde, W., & St?cker, C. (2002). A Simon effect for stimulus-response duration. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A(2), 581-592.
Lee, F. C. H. & Chan, A. H. S. (2007). Attending visual and auditory signals: Ergonomics recommendations with consideration of signal modality and spatial stimulus–response (S–R) compatibility. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 37, 197-206.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
Logan, G. D. (1995). Linguistic and conceptual control of visual spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 103-174.
Lu, C.H., & Proctor, R.W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(2), 174-207.
Masaki, H., Takasawa, N., & Yamazaki, K. (2000). An electrophysiological study of the locus of the interference effect in a stimulus-response compatibility paradigm. Psychophysiology, 37, 464-472.
Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1994). Attention shifts produce spatial stimulus codes. Psychological Research, 56(3), 144-150.
Perry, R. J., & Zeki, S. (2000). The neurology of saccades and covert shifts in spatial attention: An event-related fMRI study. Brain, 123, 2273-2288.
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3-25.
Proctor, R. W., & Lu, C. (1994). Referential coding and attention-shifting accounts of the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 56, 185-195.
Ricciardelli, P., Bonfiglioli, C., Iani, C., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2007). Spatial coding and central patterns: Is there something special about the eyes? Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(1), 79-90.
Ricciardelli, P., Bricolo, E., Aglioti. S. M., & Chelazzi, L. (2002). My eyes want to?look where your eyes are looking: Exploring the tendency to imitate another individual's gaze. NeuroReport, 13(17), 2259-2263.
Ridderinkhof, K. R., & van der Molen, M. W. (1995). Limits on the application of additive factors logie: Violations of stage robustness suggest a dual - process architecture to explain flanker effects on target processing. Acta Psychologica, 90, 29-48.
Riddoch, J. M., Humphreys, G. W., Jacobson, S., Pluck, G., Bateman, A., & Edwards, M. (2004). Impaired orientation discrimination and localisation following parietal damage: on the interplay between dorsal and ventral processes in visual perception. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 597-623.
Ristic , J., Friesen , C. K., & Kingstone, A. (2002). Are eyes special? It depends on how you look at it. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 507-513.
Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2006). The Simon effect and handedness: Evidence for a dominant-hand attentional bias in spatial coding. Perception & Psychophysics, 68(7), 1059-1069.
Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., Iani, C., & Umiltà, C. (1997). The Simon effect occurs relative to the direction of an attention shift. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(5), 1353-1364.
Rubin, R., Nakayama, K., & Shapley, R. (1996). Enhanced perception of illusory contours in the lower versus upper visual hemifields. Science, 271, 651-653.
Sanders, A. F., & Lamers, J. M. (2002). The Eriksen flanker effect revisited. Acta Psychologica, 109, 41-56.
Sheliga, B. M., Riggio, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1995). Spatial attention & eye movements. Experimental Brain Research, 105, 261-275.
Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300-304.
Simon, J. R., & Craft, J. L. (1970). Effects of an irrelevant auditory stimulus on visual choice reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86(2): 272-274.
Stevens, S. A., et al. (2008). Testing whether gaze cues and arrow cues produce reflexive or volitional shifts of attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(6), 1148-1153.
Stoffer, T. H., & Yakin, A. R. (1994). The functional-role of attention for spatial coding in the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 56(3), 151-162.
Stoffer, T. H., & Umiltà, C. (1997). Spatial stimulus coding and the focus of attention in S-R compatibility and the Simon effect. Advances in Psychology, 118, 181-208.
Stoffer. T. H. (1991). Attentional focusing and spatial stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research, 53(2), 127-135.
Tipples, J. (2002). Eye gaze is not unique: Automatic orienting in response to uninformative arrows. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9 (2), 314-318.
Tipples, J. (2008). Orienting to counterpredictive gaze and arrow cues. Perception & Psychophysics, 70(1), 77-87.
Toth, J. P., Levine, B., Stuss, D. T., Oh, A., Winocur, G., & Meiran, N. (1995). Dissociation of processes underlying spatial S-R compatibility: Evidence for the independent influence of what and where. Consciousness & Cognition, 4(4), 483-501.
Umiltà, C., & Liotti, M. (1987). Egocentric and relative spatial codes in S-R compatibility. Psychological Research, 49, 81-90.
Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1985). Attention and coding effects in S-R compatibility due to irrelevant spatial cues. In Posner, M. I., & Marin, O. S. (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 457-471). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus–response compatibility in: Proctor,R. W. & Reeve, T. G. (Eds.), Stimulus–response Compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 89-116). North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88(3), 354-360.
Wiegand, K., & Wascher, E. (2007). Response coding in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 71, 401-410.
Zorzi, M., Mapelli, D.. Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. (2003). Automatic spatial coding of perceived gaze direction is revealed by the Simon effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 423-429.