) 中国人民大学心理学系, 北京 100872
收稿日期:2018-05-25出版日期:2019-05-25发布日期:2019-03-20通讯作者:张清芳E-mail:qingfang.zhang@ruc.edu.cn基金资助:国家自然科学基金面上项目(31471074);北京市社会科学基金重点项目(16YYA006);中国人民大学科学研究基金项目(中央高校基本科研业务费专项)(18XNLG28)Aging of the tip of the tongue in daily life: A diary study
ZHAO Ruiying, LOU Hao, OUYANG Mingkun, ZHANG Qingfang() Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
Received:2018-05-25Online:2019-05-25Published:2019-03-20Contact:ZHANG Qingfang E-mail:qingfang.zhang@ruc.edu.cn摘要/Abstract
摘要： 舌尖效应是一种话到嘴边却说不出来的单词提取失败现象(Tip-of-the-Tongue, TOT)。本研究通过TOT回溯问卷和日记记录方法对青年人和老年人进行了为期28天的追踪, 考察了自然情境下舌尖效应认知年老化的发生特点及机制。结果表明：(1)自然情境下TOT存在认知老化现象, 老年人TOT发生频率比青年人更高; (2) TOT发生时, 个体存在替代词和语义相关信息的提取, 且青年人比老年人产生了更强烈的兴奋感和疲惫感的元认知体验; (3) TOT发生后目标词几乎都能获得提取, 老年人TOT的解决时间比青年人长, 但其解决率无年龄差异。TOT的解决时间受目标词熟悉性、是否存在替代词和个体主观体验的认知和元认知因素影响。(4)对TOT认知状态和元认知状态的记录会影响后续发生TOT的状态, 且延长其解决时间, 表明被试付出了更多努力和时间解决TOT。TOT的认知状态和元认知状态的因素都对TOT的解决时间产生了影响。
图/表 9
表1青年组和老年组年龄和受教育年限(M ± SD)
| 组别 | 年龄(岁) | 受教育年限(年) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range | M | SD | M | SD | |
| 青年人 | 18~25 | 21.50 | 2.43 | 13.93 | 1.82 |
| 老年人 | 60~81 | 66.91 | 6.85 | 13.34 | 2.07 |
表1青年组和老年组年龄和受教育年限(M ± SD)
| 组别 | 年龄(岁) | 受教育年限(年) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range | M | SD | M | SD | |
| 青年人 | 18~25 | 21.50 | 2.43 | 13.93 | 1.82 |
| 老年人 | 60~81 | 66.91 | 6.85 | 13.34 | 2.07 |
表2不同年龄TOT发生时目标词的基本特征(M±SD)
| 组别 | 基本信息 | 词类 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 发生总数 | 解决总数 | 熟悉度 | 平均发生数量 | 人名 | 地名 | 物体名 | 抽象词 | 电影/电视/书名 | 专有名词 | 非专有名词 | |
| 青年人 | 145 | 133 | 5.50±0.71 | 4.83±2.10 | 0.47±0.27 | 0.14±0.21 | 0.11±0.22 | 0.10±0.13 | 0.17±0.17 | 0.78±0.23 | 0.21±0.34 |
| 老年人 | 205 | 193 | 5.26±1.15 | 6.41±2.96 | 0.59±0.21 | 0.10±0.13 | 0.16±0.20 | 0.02±0.05 | 0.14±0.19 | 0.82±0.21 | 0.17±0.25 |
表2不同年龄TOT发生时目标词的基本特征(M±SD)
| 组别 | 基本信息 | 词类 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 发生总数 | 解决总数 | 熟悉度 | 平均发生数量 | 人名 | 地名 | 物体名 | 抽象词 | 电影/电视/书名 | 专有名词 | 非专有名词 | |
| 青年人 | 145 | 133 | 5.50±0.71 | 4.83±2.10 | 0.47±0.27 | 0.14±0.21 | 0.11±0.22 | 0.10±0.13 | 0.17±0.17 | 0.78±0.23 | 0.21±0.34 |
| 老年人 | 205 | 193 | 5.26±1.15 | 6.41±2.96 | 0.59±0.21 | 0.10±0.13 | 0.16±0.20 | 0.02±0.05 | 0.14±0.19 | 0.82±0.21 | 0.17±0.25 |
图1不同词类的目标词产生TOT的年龄差异
图1不同词类的目标词产生TOT的年龄差异表3不同年龄TOT发生时提取的各类信息的特点(M±SD)
| 组别 | 目标词信息 | 替代词信息 | 身心状态 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 语义信息 | 音韵信息 | 替代词发生率 | 语义信息 | 音韵信息 | 紧张度 | 疲惫感 | 兴奋度 | 舒适度 | |
| 青年人 | 0.96±0.09 | 0.06±0.12 | 0.87±0.24 | 0.58±0.27 | 0.20±0.21 | 3.57±1.14 | 4.08±0.88 | 4.10±0.91 | 3.85±0.93 |
| 老年人 | 0.97±0.80 | 0.07±0.13 | 0.87±0.13 | 0.58±0.23 | 0.27±0.24 | 3.16±1.19 | 3.09±1.20 | 3.09±1.20 | 4.11±1.22 |
表3不同年龄TOT发生时提取的各类信息的特点(M±SD)
| 组别 | 目标词信息 | 替代词信息 | 身心状态 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 语义信息 | 音韵信息 | 替代词发生率 | 语义信息 | 音韵信息 | 紧张度 | 疲惫感 | 兴奋度 | 舒适度 | |
| 青年人 | 0.96±0.09 | 0.06±0.12 | 0.87±0.24 | 0.58±0.27 | 0.20±0.21 | 3.57±1.14 | 4.08±0.88 | 4.10±0.91 | 3.85±0.93 |
| 老年人 | 0.97±0.80 | 0.07±0.13 | 0.87±0.13 | 0.58±0.23 | 0.27±0.24 | 3.16±1.19 | 3.09±1.20 | 3.09±1.20 | 4.11±1.22 |
图2青年组和老年组发生TOT时的身心状态
图2青年组和老年组发生TOT时的身心状态表4青年组和老年组不同TOT解决策略所占比例(%)的平均值和标准差(M±SD)
| 组别 | 最终解决策略 | 试图解决策略 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 反复想 | 问别人 | 查资料 | 什么都不做 | 反复想 | 问别人 | 查资料 | 什么都不做 | |
| 青年人 | 0.47±0.31 | 0.24±0.28 | 0.23±0.22 | 0.06±0.13 | 0.56±0.24 | 0.22±0.22 | 0.16±0.16 | 0.06±0.12 |
| 老年人 | 0.49±0.26 | 0.25±0.19 | 0.10±0.13 | 0.17±0.26 | 0.50±0.25 | 0.29±0.22 | 0.08±0.10 | 0.13±0.18 |
表4青年组和老年组不同TOT解决策略所占比例(%)的平均值和标准差(M±SD)
| 组别 | 最终解决策略 | 试图解决策略 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 反复想 | 问别人 | 查资料 | 什么都不做 | 反复想 | 问别人 | 查资料 | 什么都不做 | |
| 青年人 | 0.47±0.31 | 0.24±0.28 | 0.23±0.22 | 0.06±0.13 | 0.56±0.24 | 0.22±0.22 | 0.16±0.16 | 0.06±0.12 |
| 老年人 | 0.49±0.26 | 0.25±0.19 | 0.10±0.13 | 0.17±0.26 | 0.50±0.25 | 0.29±0.22 | 0.08±0.10 | 0.13±0.18 |
图3青年组和老年组解决TOT所用策略比较
图3青年组和老年组解决TOT所用策略比较表5TOT解决时间的多元线性回归结果
| Step | Variable | 各项指标 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | Adjusted R2 | ΔR2 | β | t | ||
| Step1 | 0.06 | 0.06 | ||||
| 年龄 | 0.23 | 3.86*** | ||||
| Step2 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.04 | |||
| 熟悉度 | -0.16 | -2.90** | ||||
| 是否有替代词 | 0.15 | 2.63** | ||||
| Step3 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.02 | |||
| 紧张度 | 0.12 | 1.66 | ||||
| 疲惫感 | -0.05 | -0.69 | ||||
| 兴奋度 | -0.08 | -1.28 | ||||
| 舒适度 | 0.13 | 2.32* | ||||
表5TOT解决时间的多元线性回归结果
| Step | Variable | 各项指标 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R2 | Adjusted R2 | ΔR2 | β | t | ||
| Step1 | 0.06 | 0.06 | ||||
| 年龄 | 0.23 | 3.86*** | ||||
| Step2 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.04 | |||
| 熟悉度 | -0.16 | -2.90** | ||||
| 是否有替代词 | 0.15 | 2.63** | ||||
| Step3 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.02 | |||
| 紧张度 | 0.12 | 1.66 | ||||
| 疲惫感 | -0.05 | -0.69 | ||||
| 兴奋度 | -0.08 | -1.28 | ||||
| 舒适度 | 0.13 | 2.32* | ||||
图4多水平数据分析模型图 注：认知状态：熟悉度; 元认知状态：兴奋度, 疲惫感, 舒适度, 紧张度。b1 = 认知状态、元认知状态对解决时间的影响; b2 = 解决时间滞后效应对解决时间的影响; b3 = 认知状态、元认知状态滞后效应对随后发生的TOT认知状态、元认知状态的影响; b4 = 解决时间滞后效应对认知状态、元认知状态的影响; b5 = 认知状态、元认知状态滞后效应对解决时间的影响; μ解决时间 = 解决时间平均值(组间); μ认知元认知 = 熟悉度/兴奋度/疲惫感/舒适度/紧张度平均值(组间)
图4多水平数据分析模型图 注：认知状态：熟悉度; 元认知状态：兴奋度, 疲惫感, 舒适度, 紧张度。b1 = 认知状态、元认知状态对解决时间的影响; b2 = 解决时间滞后效应对解决时间的影响; b3 = 认知状态、元认知状态滞后效应对随后发生的TOT认知状态、元认知状态的影响; b4 = 解决时间滞后效应对认知状态、元认知状态的影响; b5 = 认知状态、元认知状态滞后效应对解决时间的影响; μ解决时间 = 解决时间平均值(组间); μ认知元认知 = 熟悉度/兴奋度/疲惫感/舒适度/紧张度平均值(组间)参考文献 58
| 1 | Abrams, L., & Rodriguez, E . ( 2005). Syntactic class influences phonological priming of tip-of-the-tongue resolution. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12( 6), 1018-1023. |
| 2 | Ben-David B. M., Erel H., Goy H., & Schneider B. A . ( 2015). “Older is always better”: Age-related differences in vocabulary scores across 16 years. Psychology and Aging, 30( 4), 856-862. |
| 3 | Bolger N., Davis A., & Rafaeli E . ( 2003). Diary methods: Capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of Psychology, 54( 1), 579-616. |
| 4 | Brown A. S. ( 2012). The tip of the tongue state. Hove, United Kingdom: Psychology Press. |
| 5 | Brown, R., & McNeill, D . ( 1966). The “tip of the tongue” phenomenon. Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior, 5( 4), 325-337. |
| 6 | Buján A., Galdo-álvarez S., Lindín M., & Díaz F . ( 2012). An event-related potentials study of face naming: Evidence of phonological retrieval deficit in the tip-of-the-tongue state. Psychophysiology, 49( 7), 980-990. |
| 7 | Burke D. M., Mackay D. G., Worthley J. S., & Wade E . ( 1991). On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults? Journal of Memory & Language, 30( 5), 542-579. |
| 8 | Cleary A. M., Konkel K. E., Nomi J. S., & McCabe D. P . ( 2010). Odor recognition without identification. Memory & Cognition, 38( 4), 452-460. |
| 9 | Cleary A. M., Staley S. R., & Klein, K. R .( 2014) . The effect of tip-of-the-tongue states on other cognitive judgments. In B. L. Schwartz & A. S. Brown (Eds.), Tip-of-the-tongue states and related phenomena (pp. 75-94). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. |
| 10 | Cohen, G. ( 1990). Why is it difficult to put names to faces? British Journal of Psychology, 81(3), 287-297. |
| 11 | Cohen, G., & Faulkner, D . ( 2011). Memory for proper names: Age differences in retrieval. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4( 2), 187-197. |
| 12 | D’Angelo, M. C., & Humphreys, K. R . ( 2012). Emotional cues do not increase the likelihood of tip-of-the-tongue states. Memory and Cognition, 40( 8), 1331-1338. |
| 13 | D’Angelo, M. C., & Humphreys, K. R . ( 2015). Tip-of-the- tongue states reoccur because of implicit learning, but resolving them helps. Cognition, 142, 166-190. |
| 14 | Dell'Acqua R., Sessa P., Peressotti F., Mulatti C., Navarrete E., & Grainger J . ( 2010). ERP evidence for ultra-fast semantic processing in the picture-word interference paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 177. |
| 15 | Eldahan A. I., Pachankis J. E., Rendina H. J., Ventuneac A., Grov C., & Parsons J. T . ( 2016). Daily minority stress and affect among gay and bisexual men: A 30-day diary study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 190, 828-835. |
| 16 | Evrard, M. ( 2002). Ageing and lexical access to common and proper names in picture naming. Brain and Language, 81( 1-3), 174-179. |
| 17 | Farrell, M. T., & Abrams, L . ( 2011). Tip-of-the-tongue states reveal age differences in the syllable frequency effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37( 1), 277-285. |
| 18 | Fieder N., Nickels L., & Biedermann B . ( 2014). Representation and processing of mass and count nouns: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 589. |
| 19 | Gollan, T. H., & Brown, A. S . ( 2006). From tip-of-the-tongue (tot) data to theoretical implications in two steps: When more tots means better retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135( 3), 462-483. |
| 20 | Hanly, S., & Vandenberg, B . ( 2010). Tip-of-the-tongue and word retrieval deficits in dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43( 1), 15-23. |
| 21 | Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T . ( 1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 22, 193-225. |
| 22 | Ho C. S. H., Law T. P. S., & Ng P. M . ( 2000). The phonological deficit hypothesis in Chinese developmental dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 13( 1-2), 57-79. |
| 23 | Jones, G. V . ( 1989). Back to Woodworth: Role of interlopers in the tip of the tongue phenomenon. Memory & Cognition, 17( 1), 69-76. |
| 24 | Kuipers, S. C . ( 2013). Effect of incubation on the resolution of tip-of-the-tongue states and the relation with attention and concentration. Bachelor's thesis, University of Twente. |
| 25 | Levelt W. J., Roelofs A., & Meyer A. S . ( 1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22( 1), 1-38. |
| 26 | Ohly, Zapf S., Sonnentag S., Niessen C., & Dieter. Z . ( 2010). Diary studies in organizational research: An introduction and some practical recommendations. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9( 2), 79-93. |
| 27 | O’Seaghdha P. G., Chen J. Y., & Chen T. M . ( 2010). Proximate units in word production: Phonological encoding begins with syllables in Mandarin Chinese but with segments in English. Cognition, 115( 2), 282-302. |
| 28 | Peng, H. M., & Mao, X. F . ( 2018). Will the deficit in inhibition increase the rates of tip-of-the-tongue among the elderly? Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50( 10), 1142-1150. |
| [ 彭华茂, 毛晓飞 . ( 2018). 抑制对老年人舌尖现象的影响. 心理学报, 50( 10), 1142-1150.] | |
| 29 | Pureza R., Soares A. P., & Comesaña M . ( 2013). Syllabic pseudohomophone priming in tip-of-the-tongue states resolution: The role of syllabic position and number of syllables. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66( 5), 910-926. |
| 30 | Reis H. T., & Gable, S. L .( 2000). Event-sampling and other methods for studying everyday experience. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge University Press. |
| 31 | Sadat J., Martin C. D., Costa A., & Alario F. X . ( 2014). Reconciling phonological neighborhood effects in speech production through single trial analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 68, 33-58. |
| 32 | Schiller, N. O . ( 1998). The effect of visually masked syllable primes on the naming latencies of words and pictures. Journal of Memory & Language, 39( 3), 484-507. |
| 33 | Schiller, N. O . ( 1999). No role for syllables in English speech production. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105( 2), 1355-1355. |
| 34 | Schwartz, B. L . ( 1999). The phenomenology of naturally- occurring tip-of-the-tongue states: A diary study. In S. Shohov (Ed.) Advances in psychology research( pp. 71-84). Nova Science Publishers: New York. |
| 35 | Schwartz, B. L . ( 2001). The relation of tip-of-the-tongue states and retrieval time. Memory & Cognition, 29( 1), 117-126. |
| 36 | Schwartz, B. L . ( 2002). Tip-of-the-tongue states: Phenomenology, mechanism, and lexical retrieval. Experimental Psychology, 49( 3), 239-240. |
| 37 | Schwartz, B. L . ( 2008). Working memory load differentially affects tip-of-the-tongue states and feeling-of-knowing judgment. Memory & Cognition, 36( 1), 9-19. |
| 38 | Schwartz, B. L . ( 2010). The effects of emotion on tip-of-the- tongue states. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17( 1), 82-87. |
| 39 | Schwartz, B. L., & Metcalfe, J . ( 2011). Tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) states: Retrieval, behavior, and experience. Memory & Cognition, 39( 5), 737-749. |
| 40 | Schwartz, B. L., & Smith, S. M . ( 1997). The retrieval of related information influences tip-of-the-tongue states. Journal of Memory and Language, 36( 1), 68-86. |
| 41 | Schwartz B. L., Travis D. M., Castro A. M., & Smith S. M . ( 2000). The phenomenology of real and illusory tip-of-the- tongue states. Memory & Cognition, 28( 1), 18-27. |
| 42 | Semenza, C. ( 1995). How names are special: Neuropsychological evidence for dissociable impairment and sparing of proper name knowledge in production. Broken memories: Case studies in memory impairment. Blackwell, Oxford. |
| 43 | Sörös P., Bose A., Sokoloff L. G., Graham S. J., & Stuss D. T . ( 2011). Age-related changes in the functional neuroanatomy of overt speech production. Neurobiology of Aging, 32( 8), 1505-1513. |
| 44 | Souchay, C., & Smith, S. J . ( 2013). Subjective states associated with retrieval failures in Parkinson’s disease. Consciousness and Cognition, 22( 3), 795-805. |
| 45 | Starreveld, P. A., & La Heij, W . ( 1995). Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation, and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21( 3), 686-698. |
| 46 | Stoltzfus E. R., Hasher L., & Zacks R. T . ( 1996). Working memory and aging: Current status of the inhibitory view. Working Memory and Human Cognition, 66-88. |
| 47 | Trull, T. J., & Phares, E. J . ( 2001). Clinical psychology: Concepts, methods, and profession (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. |
| 48 | Wang, L., & Guo, D. J . ( 2000). The nature and components of metacognition. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 32( 4), 458-463. |
| [ 汪玲, 郭德俊 . ( 2000). 元认知的本质与要素. 心理学报, 32( 4), 458-463. ] | |
| 49 | Warriner, A. B., & Humphreys, K. R . ( 2008). Learning to fail: Reoccurring tip-of-the-tongue states. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61( 4), 535-542. |
| 50 | White K. K., Abrams L., & Frame E. A . ( 2013). Semantic category moderates phonological priming of proper name retrieval during tip-of-the-tongue states. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28( 4), 561-576. |
| 51 | Wilhelm, P., & Joolingen, W. R . ( 2013). Effect of incubation on the resolution of tip-of-the-tongue states and the relation with attention and concentration. University of Twente Student Theses. |
| 52 | You W. P., Zhang Q. F., & Verdonschot R. G . ( 2012). Masked syllable priming effects in word and picture naming in Chinese. PlosOne, 7( 10), e46595. |
| 53 | Zhang, Q . ( 2008). Phonological encoding in monosyllabic and bisyllabic Mandarin word production: Implicit priming paradigm study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 40( 3), 253-262. |
| [ 张清芳 . ( 2008). 汉语单音节和双音节词汇产生中的音韵编码过程: 内隐启动范式研究. 心理学报, 40( 3), 253-262.] | |
| 54 | Zhang, Q. F., & Weekes, B. S . ( 2009). Orthographic facilitation effects on spoken word production: Evidence from Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(#7-8), 1082-1096. |
| 55 | Zhang Q. F., Weekes B. S., Chen H. C., & Yang Y. F . ( 2009). Independent effects of orthographic and phonological facilitation on spoken word production in Mandarin. Language and Speech, 52( 1), 113-126. |
| 56 | Zhang, Q. F., Zhu, X, B. & Damian, M. F . ( 2018). Phonological activation of category coordinates in spoken word production: Evidence for cascaded processing in English but not in Mandarin. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39( 5) 1-26. |
| 57 | Zhu X. B., Damian M. F., & Zhang Q. F . ( 2015). Seriality of semantic and phonological processes during overt speech in Mandarin as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 144, 16-25. |
| 58 | Zhu X. B., Zhang Q. F., & Damian M. F . ( 2016). Additivity of semantic and phonological effects: Evidence from speech production in Mandarin. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69( 11), 2285-2304. |
相关文章 7
| [1] | 吴翰林, 于宙, 王雪娇, 张清芳. 语言能力的老化机制：语言特异性与非特异性因素的共同作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(5): 541-561. |
| [2] | 杨群, 张清芳. 汉语图画命名过程的年老化机制：非选择性抑制能力的影响 *[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(10): 1079-1090. |
| [3] | Soledad Ballesteros and Julia Mayas. 保留的跨通道启动与老化：对于近期观点的总结[J]. 心理学报, 2009, 41(11): 1063-1074. |
| [4] | 杨丽霞, 拉尔夫 Th. 克兰木普. SOC理论对于适应性资源管理的理论解释与实验研究[J]. 心理学报, 2003, 35(增刊): 29-38. |
| [5] | 刘 ,昌,李德明. 工作记忆和感觉运动速度在心算加工年老化过程中的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2003, 35(05): 617-627. |
| [6] | 李娟,吴振云, ,林仲贤,韩布新. 年龄、焦虑与情节记忆之内容与来源的关系[J]. 心理学报, 2003, 35(04): 461-470. |
| [7] | 罗琳,韩布新. 支持性条件对记忆年龄差异的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2001, 33(5): 22-26. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4441
