) 中国人民大学心理学系, 北京 100872
收稿日期:2018-11-12出版日期:2019-11-25发布日期:2019-08-19通讯作者:张清芳E-mail:qingfang.zhang@ruc.edu.cn基金资助:* 北京市社会科学基金重点项目(16YYA006);国家自然科学基金面上项目(31471074);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)项目资助(18XNLG28)Aging effect of picture naming in Chinese: The influence of the non-selective inhibition ability
YANG Qun, ZHANG Qingfang() Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
Received:2018-11-12Online:2019-11-25Published:2019-08-19Contact:ZHANG Qingfang E-mail:qingfang.zhang@ruc.edu.cn摘要/Abstract
摘要： 采用图画-词汇干扰任务考察和比较了青年人和老年人在汉语口语词汇产生中的干扰词频效应, 以及非选择性抑制能力对两组人群干扰词频效应和图画命名潜伏期的影响。结果发现：无关干扰词的词频影响了青年人的图画命名过程, 出现了干扰词频效应, 这一效应更可能发生在反应排除阶段, 且不受非选择性抑制能力的影响; 相比而言, 老年人中未出现干扰词频效应, 这可能是由于老年人的音韵表征衰退导致其不能利用干扰词的词频信息, 支持了口语产生认知年老化的传输不足假设。非选择性抑制能力影响了老年人的图画-词汇干扰任务中图画命名的潜伏期, 非选择性抑制能力减弱, 图画命名时间延长, 表明一般性认知能力的衰退影响了语言产生过程。
图/表 5
表1青年人与老年人在不同SOA和不同干扰字频率下的图画命名潜伏期均值(标准差) (ms)
| SOA | 干扰字字频 | 效应量 (低频-高频) | Cohen d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 低词频 | 高词频 | |||
| 青年人 | ||||
| -100 | 702 (64) | 691 (57) | 11* | 0.18 |
| 0 | 712 (85) | 691 (74) | 21** | 0.38 |
| 100 | 588 (70) | 580 (60) | 8 | 0.12 |
| 老年人 | ||||
| -100 | 847 (128) | 842 (121) | 5 | 0.04 |
| 0 | 827 (114) | 825 (118) | 2 | 0.02 |
| 100 | 725 (121) | 734 (106) | -9 | 0.08 |
表1青年人与老年人在不同SOA和不同干扰字频率下的图画命名潜伏期均值(标准差) (ms)
| SOA | 干扰字字频 | 效应量 (低频-高频) | Cohen d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 低词频 | 高词频 | |||
| 青年人 | ||||
| -100 | 702 (64) | 691 (57) | 11* | 0.18 |
| 0 | 712 (85) | 691 (74) | 21** | 0.38 |
| 100 | 588 (70) | 580 (60) | 8 | 0.12 |
| 老年人 | ||||
| -100 | 847 (128) | 842 (121) | 5 | 0.04 |
| 0 | 827 (114) | 825 (118) | 2 | 0.02 |
| 100 | 725 (121) | 734 (106) | -9 | 0.08 |
表2青年人和老年人各条件下的平均反应时(ms)及标准差
| 目标词词频 | 干扰字字频 | 效应量 (低频-高频) | Cohen d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 低词频 | 高词频 | |||
| 青年人 | ||||
| 低 | 752 (98) | 742 (96) | 10* | 0.10 |
| 中 | 762 (99) | 750 (91) | 12 | 0.13 |
| 高 | 731 (99) | 703 (92) | 28*** | 0.29 |
| 老年人 | ||||
| 低 | 854 (86) | 841 (73) | 13 | 0.16 |
| 中 | 856 (87) | 857 (76) | -1 | 0.01 |
| 高 | 812 (93) | 809 (79) | 3 | 0.03 |
表2青年人和老年人各条件下的平均反应时(ms)及标准差
| 目标词词频 | 干扰字字频 | 效应量 (低频-高频) | Cohen d | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 低词频 | 高词频 | |||
| 青年人 | ||||
| 低 | 752 (98) | 742 (96) | 10* | 0.10 |
| 中 | 762 (99) | 750 (91) | 12 | 0.13 |
| 高 | 731 (99) | 703 (92) | 28*** | 0.29 |
| 老年人 | ||||
| 低 | 854 (86) | 841 (73) | 13 | 0.16 |
| 中 | 856 (87) | 857 (76) | -1 | 0.01 |
| 高 | 812 (93) | 809 (79) | 3 | 0.03 |
表3反应时在年龄、目标词词频与干扰词频三因素下被试和项目方差分析的结果
| 变异来源 | F | MSE | p | ηp2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 目标词词频 | F1(2, 122) | 41.03 | 60583 | <0.001 | 0.402 |
| F2(2, 114) | 3.71 | 11751 | 0.061 | 0.061 | |
| 干扰词频 | F1(1, 61) | 10.54 | 10467 | 0.002 | 0.147 |
| F2(1, 114) | 9.506 | 817 | 0.003 | 0.077 | |
| 年龄 | F1(1, 61) | 21.38 | 40678 | <0.001 | 0.260 |
| F2(1, 114) | 50.30 | 11751 | <0.001 | 0.306 | |
| 年龄×干扰词频 | F1(1, 61) | 3.49 | 993 | 0.067 | 0.054 |
| F2(1, 114) | 3.59 | 817 | 0.061 | 0.031 | |
| 年龄×干扰词频效应×目标图词频 | F1(1, 61) | 4.87 | 610 | 0.031 | 0.074 |
| F2(2, 114) | 1.36 | 817 | 0.262 | 0.023 | |
表3反应时在年龄、目标词词频与干扰词频三因素下被试和项目方差分析的结果
| 变异来源 | F | MSE | p | ηp2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 目标词词频 | F1(2, 122) | 41.03 | 60583 | <0.001 | 0.402 |
| F2(2, 114) | 3.71 | 11751 | 0.061 | 0.061 | |
| 干扰词频 | F1(1, 61) | 10.54 | 10467 | 0.002 | 0.147 |
| F2(1, 114) | 9.506 | 817 | 0.003 | 0.077 | |
| 年龄 | F1(1, 61) | 21.38 | 40678 | <0.001 | 0.260 |
| F2(1, 114) | 50.30 | 11751 | <0.001 | 0.306 | |
| 年龄×干扰词频 | F1(1, 61) | 3.49 | 993 | 0.067 | 0.054 |
| F2(1, 114) | 3.59 | 817 | 0.061 | 0.031 | |
| 年龄×干扰词频效应×目标图词频 | F1(1, 61) | 4.87 | 610 | 0.031 | 0.074 |
| F2(2, 114) | 1.36 | 817 | 0.262 | 0.023 | |
图1青年组和老年组非选择性抑制能力与图画命名平均反应时之间的相关
图1青年组和老年组非选择性抑制能力与图画命名平均反应时之间的相关表4年龄、受教育年限、一般认知能力及非选择性抑制能力对老年人图片命名平均反应时的回归分析
| 预测变量 | Beta | SE | t |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.22 | 2.81 | 0.95 |
| Edu | -0.04 | 6.48 | -0.16 |
| Moca | -0.26 | 9.3 | -1.68 |
| SSRT | 0.31 | 0.12 | 1.98* |
表4年龄、受教育年限、一般认知能力及非选择性抑制能力对老年人图片命名平均反应时的回归分析
| 预测变量 | Beta | SE | t |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.22 | 2.81 | 0.95 |
| Edu | -0.04 | 6.48 | -0.16 |
| Moca | -0.26 | 9.3 | -1.68 |
| SSRT | 0.31 | 0.12 | 1.98* |
参考文献 48
| [1] | 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 and Language, 30( 5), 542-579. |
| [2] | Burke, D. M., & Shafto, M. A . ( 2008). Aging and language production. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13( 1), 21-24. |
| [3] | Castro, N., & James, L. E . ( 2014). Differences between young and older adults’ spoken language production in descriptions of negative versus neutral pictures, Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 21( 2), 222-238. |
| [4] | Cleary A. M., Konkel K. E., Nomi J. S., & McCabe D. P . ( 2010). Odor recognition without identification. Memory & Cognition, 38( 4), 452-460. |
| [5] | Cohen, J. ( 1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. |
| [6] | Cutting, J. C., & Ferreira, V. S . ( 1999). Semantic and phonological information flow in the production lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25( 2), 318-344. |
| [7] | 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). |
| [8] | Dhooge E., de Baene W., & Hartsuiker R. J . ( 2013). A late locus of the distractor frequency effect in picture-word interference: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 124( 3), 232-237. |
| [9] | Dhooge, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J . ( 2010). The distractor frequency effect in picture-word interference: Evidence for response exclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36( 4), 878-891. |
| [10] | Duncan, J. ( 2004). Selective attention in distributed brain areas. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of attention (pp. 105-113). New York, NY: Guilford Press. |
| [11] | Fieder N., Nickels L., & Biedermann B . ( 2014). Representation and processing of mass and count nouns: a review. Frontiers in Psychology, 5( 589). |
| [12] | Finkbeiner, M., & Caramazza , A. ( 2006). Now you see it, now you don't: On turning semantic interference into facilitation in a Stroop-like task. Cortex, 42( 6), 790-796. |
| [13] | Forstmann B. U., Jahfari S., Scholte H. S., Wolfensteller U., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., & Ridderinkhof K. R . ( 2008). Function and structure of the right inferior frontal cortex predict individual differences in response inhibition: A model-based approach. Journal of Neuroscience, 28( 39), 9790-9796. |
| [14] | Glaser, W. R., & Düngelhoff, F. J . ( 1984). The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10( 5), 640-654. |
| [15] | He, J. Y., & Zhang, Q. F . ( 2017). The temporal courses of word frequency effect and syllable frequency effect of Chinese handwritten production in the old: An ERP study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49( 12), 1483-1493. |
| [ 何洁莹, 张清芳 . ( 2017). 老年人书写产生中词汇频率和音节频率效应的时间进程:ERP研究. 心理学报, 49( 12), 1483-1493.] | |
| [16] | Jescheniak, J. D., & Levelt, W. J. M . ( 1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20( 4), 824-843. |
| [17] | Jescheniak J. D., Meyer A. S ., & Levelt, W. J. M. ( 2003). Specific-word frequency is not all that counts in speech production: Comments on Caramazza, Costa, et al. (2001) and new experimental data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29( 3), 432-438. |
| [18] | Kandel S., álvarez C., & Vallée N . ( 2006). Syllables as processing units in handwriting production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32( 1), 18-31. |
| [19] | Logan G. D. ( 1994). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: a users’ guide to the stop signal paradigm. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr, Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp.189-239). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press. |
| [20] | MacKay, D. G., & Abrams, L. ( 1998). Age-linked declines in retrieving orthographic knowledge: empirical, practical, and theoretical implications. Psychology and Ageing, 13( 4), 647-662. |
| [21] | MacKay D. G., Abrams L., & Pedroza M. J . ( 1999). Aging on the input versus output side: Theoretical implications of age-linked asymmetries between detecting versus retrieving orthographic information. Psychology and Aging, 14( 1), 3-17. |
| [22] | Mahon B. Z., Costa A., Peterson R., Vargas K. A., & Caramazza A . ( 2007). Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33( 3), 503-535. |
| [23] | Miozzo, M., & Caramazza A. ( 2003). When more is less: a counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132( 2), 228-252. |
| [24] | Mortensen L., Meyer A. S., & Humphreys G. W . ( 2006). Age-related effects on speech production: A review. Language and Cognition. Process. 21( 1-3), 238-290. |
| [25] | Nigg, J. T . ( 2000). On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: Views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 12 6(2), 220-246. |
| [26] | 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. | |
| [27] | Protopapas A., Archonti A., & Skaloumbakas C . ( 2007). Reading ability is negatively related to Stroop interference. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 251-282. |
| [28] | Qu Q., Zhang Q., & Damian M. F . ( 2016). Tracking the Time Course of Lexical Access in Orthographic Production: An Event-Related Potential Study of Word Frequency Effects in Written Picture Naming, Brain and Language, 159, 118-126. |
| [29] | Roelofs, A. ( 2005). From Popper to Lakatos: A case for cumulative computational modeling. In A. Cutler (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones ( pp. 313-330). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA. |
| [30] | Roelofs A., Piai V., & Schriefers H . ( 2011). Selective attention and distractor frequency in naming performance: Comment on Dhooge and Hartsuiker (2010). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37( 4), 1032-1038. |
| [31] | Schaie, K. W . ( 2000). The impact of longitudinal studies on understanding development from young adulthood to old age. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24( 3), 257-266. |
| [32] | Schriefers H., Meyer A. S ., & Levelt, W. J. M. ( 1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29( 1), 86-102. |
| [33] | Shao Z., Meyer A. S., & Roelofs A . ( 2013). Selective and nonselective inhibition of competitors in picture naming. Memory & cognition, 41( 8), 1200-1211. |
| [34] | Snyder, P., & Lawson, S. ( 1993). Evaluating results using corrected and uncorrected effect size estimates. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 334-349. |
| [35] | S?r?s 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), 1505-513. |
| [36] | Spaulding, T. J . ( 2010). Investigating mechanisms of suppression in preschool children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53( 3), 725-738. |
| [37] | 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. |
| [38] | Starreveld, P. A., & la Heij, W. ( 1996). Time-course analysis of semantic and orthographic context effects in picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22( 4), 896-918. |
| [39] | Stemberger, J. P., & Macwhinney, B. ( 1986) Form-oriented inflectional errors in language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 18( 3), 329-354. |
| [40] | Sternberg, S. ( 1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276-315. |
| [41] | Verbruggen F., Logan G. D., & Stevens M. A . ( 2008). STOP-IT: Windows executable software for the stop-signal paradigm. Behavior Research Methods, 40( 2), 479-483. |
| [42] | Yang, Q., & Zhang, Q. F . ( 2015). Aging of word frequency, syllable frequency and phonological facilitation effects in Chinese speech production. Journal of Psychological Science, 38( 6), 1303-1310. |
| [ 杨群, 张清芳 . ( 2015). 口语产生中词频效应, 音节频率效应和语音促进效应的认知年老化. 心理科学, 38( 6), 1303-1310.] | |
| [43] | Zhang, Q. F., & Wang, C. ( 2014). Syllable frequency and word frequency effects in spoken and written word production in a non-alphabetic script. Frontiers in Psychology. 5, 120. |
| [44] | Zhang, Q. F. & Yang, Y. F . ( 2003). The lexical access theory in speech production. Advances in Psychological Science, 11, 6-11. |
| [ 张清芳, 杨玉芳 . ( 2003). 言语产生中的词汇通达理论. 心理科学进展, 11, 6-11.] | |
| [45] | 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), 835-860. |
| [46] | Zheng H. M., Wen Z. L., & Wu Y . ( 2011). The appropriate effect sizes and their calculations in psychological research. Advances in Psychological Science, 19( 12), 1868-1878. |
| [ 郑昊敏, 温忠麟, 吴艳 . ( 2011). 心理学常用效应量的选用与分析. 心理科学进展, 19( 12), 1868-1878.] | |
| [47] | 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. |
| [48] | Zhu X. B., Zhang Q. F., & Damian M. F . ( 2016). Additivity of semantic and phonological effects: evidence from speech production in mandarin. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69( 11), 2285-2304. |
相关文章 4
| [1] | 高晓雷, 李晓伟, 孙敏, 白学军, 高蕾. 藏语阅读中中央凹词频效应及对副中央凹预视效应的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(10): 1143-1155. |
| [2] | 苏衡;刘志方;曹立人. 中文阅读预视加工中的词频和预测性效应及其对词切分的启示：基于眼动的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(6): 625-636. |
| [3] | 李小健,王文娜,李晓倩. 同音字族内的听觉通道词频效应与同音字表征的激活[J]. 心理学报, 2011, 43(07): 749-762. |
| [4] | 郭春彦,朱滢,丁锦红,范思陆. 记忆编码与特异性效应之间关系的ERP研究[J]. 心理学报, 2004, 36(04): 455-463. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4527
