), 严颖 福建师范大学心理学院, 福州 350117
收稿日期:2019-09-09出版日期:2020-05-25发布日期:2020-03-26通讯作者:孟迎芳E-mail:mengyf1978@126.com基金资助:* 国家自然科学基金青年项目(31800906);福建省自然基金面上项目(2018J01719)The effects of retrieval interference on different types of implicit memory
HUANG Fajie, MENG Yingfang(), YAN Ying School of Psychology, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou 350117, China
Received:2019-09-09Online:2020-05-25Published:2020-03-26Contact:MENG Yingfang E-mail:mengyf1978@126.com摘要/Abstract
摘要： 以往研究关于提取阶段的干扰是否会影响内隐记忆存在着异义, 其中一个重要因素可能源于所采用的内隐记忆测验类型的差异。本研究采用学习-测验范式, 通过4个实验, 分别考察了提取干扰对识别式知觉内隐测验、识别式概念内隐测验、产生式知觉内隐测验和产生式概念内隐测验的影响, 以期对提取干扰和内隐记忆之间的关系有着更全面的了解。结果表明: (1)词汇判断任务(识别式知觉)和语义分类任务(识别式概念)的启动效应在提取干扰下消失了, (2)而产生式词汇判断任务(产生式知觉)和产生式语义分类任务(产生式概念)在提取干扰下仍发现了明显的启动效应, 但与无干扰条件相比, 启动效应量也有着明显的减少。由此可见, 不同类型的内隐记忆都会受到提取干扰的影响, 相比于产生式启动, 识别式启动更容易受到提取干扰的破坏。
图/表 8
图1词汇判断任务有无干扰条件下的测验流程图
图1词汇判断任务有无干扰条件下的测验流程图表1词汇判断任务各条件下的反应时和正确率指标
| 指标 | 条件 | 知觉编码旧词 | 概念编码旧词 | 新词 | 知觉编码启动量 | 概念编码启动量 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 反应时(ms) | 无干扰 | 639 ± 12 | 646 ± 9 | 681 ± 12 | 43 ± 8 | 35 ± 6 |
| 有干扰 | 1229 ± 74 | 1250 ± 71 | 1260 ± 68 | 32 ± 18 | 10 ± 19 | |
| 正确率(%) | 无干扰 | 0.99 ± 0.02 | 0.98 ± 0.03 | 0.95 ± 0.04 | 0.04 ± 0.04 | 0.04 ± 0.04 |
| 有干扰 | 0.96 ± 0.04 | 0.94 ± 0.06 | 0.94 ± 0.04 | 0.01 ± 0.05 | 0.01 ± 0.04 | |
| ACs | 无干扰 | 86.92 ± 1.05 | 85.65 ± 1.16 | 77.83 ± 1.01 | 9.09 ± 1.25 | 7.82 ± 1.28 |
| 有干扰 | 80.30 ± 1.31 | 78.99 ± 1.64 | 77.79 ± 1.20 | 2.51 ± 1.51 | 1.20 ± 1.79 |
表1词汇判断任务各条件下的反应时和正确率指标
| 指标 | 条件 | 知觉编码旧词 | 概念编码旧词 | 新词 | 知觉编码启动量 | 概念编码启动量 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 反应时(ms) | 无干扰 | 639 ± 12 | 646 ± 9 | 681 ± 12 | 43 ± 8 | 35 ± 6 |
| 有干扰 | 1229 ± 74 | 1250 ± 71 | 1260 ± 68 | 32 ± 18 | 10 ± 19 | |
| 正确率(%) | 无干扰 | 0.99 ± 0.02 | 0.98 ± 0.03 | 0.95 ± 0.04 | 0.04 ± 0.04 | 0.04 ± 0.04 |
| 有干扰 | 0.96 ± 0.04 | 0.94 ± 0.06 | 0.94 ± 0.04 | 0.01 ± 0.05 | 0.01 ± 0.04 | |
| ACs | 无干扰 | 86.92 ± 1.05 | 85.65 ± 1.16 | 77.83 ± 1.01 | 9.09 ± 1.25 | 7.82 ± 1.28 |
| 有干扰 | 80.30 ± 1.31 | 78.99 ± 1.64 | 77.79 ± 1.20 | 2.51 ± 1.51 | 1.20 ± 1.79 |
图2语义分类任务干扰条件流程图
图2语义分类任务干扰条件流程图表2语义分类任务中各种条件下的平均反应时和正确率指标
| 指标 | 条件 | 知觉编码旧词 | 概念编码旧词 | 新词 | 知觉编码启动量 | 概念编码启动量 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 反应时(ms) | 无干扰 | 718 ± 29 | 701 ± 28 | 742 ± 29 | 24 ± 7 | 40 ± 8 |
| 有干扰 | 1186 ± 61 | 1197 ± 63 | 1134 ± 58 | -51 ± 19 | -62 ± 23 | |
| 正确率(%) | 无干扰 | 0.94 ± 0.01 | 0.91 ± 0.01 | 0.89 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.02 ± 0.02 |
| 有干扰 | 0.92 ± 0.02 | 0.91 ± 0.02 | 0.90 ± 0.02 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | |
| ACs | 无干扰 | 77.35 ± 1.52 | 74.93 ± 1.85 | 72.23 ± 1.62 | 5.12 ± 1.31 | 2.70 ± 1.93 |
| 有干扰 | 76.97 ± 2.16 | 75.65 ± 1.98 | 74.53 ± 2.09 | 2.43 ± 2.03 | 1.12 ± 1.65 |
表2语义分类任务中各种条件下的平均反应时和正确率指标
| 指标 | 条件 | 知觉编码旧词 | 概念编码旧词 | 新词 | 知觉编码启动量 | 概念编码启动量 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 反应时(ms) | 无干扰 | 718 ± 29 | 701 ± 28 | 742 ± 29 | 24 ± 7 | 40 ± 8 |
| 有干扰 | 1186 ± 61 | 1197 ± 63 | 1134 ± 58 | -51 ± 19 | -62 ± 23 | |
| 正确率(%) | 无干扰 | 0.94 ± 0.01 | 0.91 ± 0.01 | 0.89 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.02 ± 0.02 |
| 有干扰 | 0.92 ± 0.02 | 0.91 ± 0.02 | 0.90 ± 0.02 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | |
| ACs | 无干扰 | 77.35 ± 1.52 | 74.93 ± 1.85 | 72.23 ± 1.62 | 5.12 ± 1.31 | 2.70 ± 1.93 |
| 有干扰 | 76.97 ± 2.16 | 75.65 ± 1.98 | 74.53 ± 2.09 | 2.43 ± 2.03 | 1.12 ± 1.65 |
图3产生式的词汇判断任务干扰条件流程图
图3产生式的词汇判断任务干扰条件流程图表3产生式词汇判断任务各种条件下的平均反应时和正确率指标
| 指标 | 条件 | 知觉编码旧词 | 概念编码旧词 | 新词 | 知觉编码启动量 | 概念编码启动量 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 反应时(ms) | 无干扰 | 860 ± 23 | 851 ± 24 | 958 ± 31 | 98 ± 13 | 107 ± 12 |
| 有干扰 | 1227 ± 65 | 1236 ± 64 | 1279 ± 65 | 52 ± 15 | 43 ± 16 | |
| 正确率(%) | 无干扰 | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.89 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 |
| 有干扰 | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.96 ± 0.01 | 0.92 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.01 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | |
| ACs | 无干扰 | 79.95 ± 1.57 | 80.01 ± 1.68 | 71.23 ± 1.16 | 8.72 ± 1.52 | 8.78 ± 1.28 |
| 有干扰 | 79.18 ± 1.34 | 81.94 ± 1.50 | 74.73 ± 1.21 | 4.46 ± 1.49 | 7.21 ± 1.63 |
表3产生式词汇判断任务各种条件下的平均反应时和正确率指标
| 指标 | 条件 | 知觉编码旧词 | 概念编码旧词 | 新词 | 知觉编码启动量 | 概念编码启动量 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 反应时(ms) | 无干扰 | 860 ± 23 | 851 ± 24 | 958 ± 31 | 98 ± 13 | 107 ± 12 |
| 有干扰 | 1227 ± 65 | 1236 ± 64 | 1279 ± 65 | 52 ± 15 | 43 ± 16 | |
| 正确率(%) | 无干扰 | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.89 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 |
| 有干扰 | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.96 ± 0.01 | 0.92 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.01 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | |
| ACs | 无干扰 | 79.95 ± 1.57 | 80.01 ± 1.68 | 71.23 ± 1.16 | 8.72 ± 1.52 | 8.78 ± 1.28 |
| 有干扰 | 79.18 ± 1.34 | 81.94 ± 1.50 | 74.73 ± 1.21 | 4.46 ± 1.49 | 7.21 ± 1.63 |
图4产生式语义分类任务干扰条件流程图
图4产生式语义分类任务干扰条件流程图表4产生式语义分类任务各种条件下的平均反应时和正确率指标
| 指标 | 条件 | 知觉编码旧词 | 概念编码旧词 | 新词 | 知觉编码启动量 | 概念编码启动量 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 反应时(ms) | 无干扰 | 992 ± 24 | 969 ± 21 | 1055 ± 26 | 63 ± 13 | 86 ± 10 |
| 有干扰 | 1347 ± 62 | 1320 ± 69 | 1403 ± 68 | 55 ± 19 | 83 ± 19 | |
| 正确率(%) | 无干扰 | 0.96 ± 0.01 | 0.94 ± 0.01 | 0.88 ± 0.01 | 0.08 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 |
| 有干扰 | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.94 ± 0.01 | 0.91 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | |
| ACs | 无干扰 | 81.25 ± 1.39 | 77.77 ± 1.50 | 70.43 ± 1.15 | 10.82 ± 0.99 | 7.34 ± 1.20 |
| 有干扰 | 80.38 ± 1.65 | 78.59 ± 1.65 | 73.28 ± 1.37 | 7.10 ± 1.35 | 5.31 ± 1.60 |
表4产生式语义分类任务各种条件下的平均反应时和正确率指标
| 指标 | 条件 | 知觉编码旧词 | 概念编码旧词 | 新词 | 知觉编码启动量 | 概念编码启动量 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 反应时(ms) | 无干扰 | 992 ± 24 | 969 ± 21 | 1055 ± 26 | 63 ± 13 | 86 ± 10 |
| 有干扰 | 1347 ± 62 | 1320 ± 69 | 1403 ± 68 | 55 ± 19 | 83 ± 19 | |
| 正确率(%) | 无干扰 | 0.96 ± 0.01 | 0.94 ± 0.01 | 0.88 ± 0.01 | 0.08 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 |
| 有干扰 | 0.95 ± 0.01 | 0.94 ± 0.01 | 0.91 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | |
| ACs | 无干扰 | 81.25 ± 1.39 | 77.77 ± 1.50 | 70.43 ± 1.15 | 10.82 ± 0.99 | 7.34 ± 1.20 |
| 有干扰 | 80.38 ± 1.65 | 78.59 ± 1.65 | 73.28 ± 1.37 | 7.10 ± 1.35 | 5.31 ± 1.60 |
参考文献 40
| [1] | Adams S. C., & Kiefer M . (2012). Testing the attentional boundary conditions of subliminal semantic priming: the influence of semantic and phonological task sets. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1-12. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00001URLpmid: 22279433 |
| [2] | Alipour A., Aerab-Sheybani K., & Akhondy N . (2012). Effects of handedness and depth of processing on the explicit and implicit memory. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 32, 29-33. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.005URL |
| [3] | Anderson S. F., Kelley K., & Maxwell S. E . (2017). Sample- size planning for more accurate statistical power: a method adjusting sample effect sizes for publication bias and uncertainty. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1547-1562. doi: 10.1177/0956797617723724URLpmid: 28902575 |
| [4] | Barnhardt T . (2005). Number of solutions effects in stem decision: support for the distinction between identification and production processes in priming. Memory, 13(7), 725-748. doi: 10.1080/09658210444000368URLpmid: 16191822 |
| [5] | Clarke A. J. B., & Butler L. T . (2008). Dissociating word stem completion and cued recall as a function of divided attention at retrieval. Memory, 16(7), 763-772. doi: 10.1080/09658210802261116URLpmid: 18720222 |
| [6] | D’Esposito M., Detre J. A., Alsop D. C., Shin R. K., Atlas S., & Grossman M . (1995). The neural basis of the central executive system of working memory. Nature, 378, 279-281. doi: 10.1038/378279a0URLpmid: 7477346 |
| [7] | Dew I. T. Z., & Cabeza R . (2011). The porous boundaries between explicit and implicit memory: behavioral and neural evidence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1224(1), 174-190. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05946.xURLpmid: 21486300 |
| [8] | Gabrieli J. D. E., Vaidya C. J., Stone M., Francis W. S., Thompson-Schill S. L., Fleischman D. A., … Wilson R. S . (1999). Convergent behavioral and neuropsychological evidence for a distinction between identification and production forms of repetition priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128(4), 479-498. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.128.4.479URLpmid: 10650584 |
| [9] | Geraci L . (2006). A test of the frontal lobe functioning hypothesis of age deficits in production priming. Neuropsychology, 20(5), 539-548. doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.20.5.539URLpmid: 16938016 |
| [10] | Just M. A., Keller T. A., & Cynkar J . (2008). A decrease in brain activation associated with driving when listening to someone speak. Brain Research, 1205, 70-80. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.12.075URLpmid: 18353285 |
| [11] | Kiefer M . (2012). Executive control over unconscious cognition: attentional sensitization of unconscious information processing. Frontiers of Human Neuroscience, 6, 1-12. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00061URLpmid: 22470329 |
| [12] | Kiefer M., & Martens U . (2010). Attentional sensitization of unconscious cognition: task sets modulate subsequent masked semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(3), 464-489. doi: 10.1037/a0019561URLpmid: 20677895 |
| [13] | LaVoie D. J., & Faulkner K. M . (2008). Production and identification repetition priming in amnesticmild cognitive impairment. Aging Neuropsychology and Cognition, 15(4), 523-544. doi: 10.1080/13825580802051497URLpmid: 18584343 |
| [14] | Leynes P. A., Bruett H., Krizan J., & Veloso A . (2017). What psychological process is reflected in the FN400 event-related potential component. Brain and Cognition, 113, 142-154. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2017.02.004URLpmid: 28235696 |
| [15] | Lin J. Y., Meng Y. F., & Lin W. J . (in press). Conditional automaticity: interference effects on the implicit memory retrieval process. Psychological Research. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01228-9. doi: 10.1007/s00426-019-01228-9URLpmid: 31302775 |
| [16] | Lin W. J., Meng Y. F., & Lin J. Y . (2017). Effects of interference on retrieval process in implicit memory. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(7), 49-60. |
| [ 林无忌, 孟迎芳, 林静远 . (2017). 提取干扰对内隐记忆的影响. 心理学报, 49(7), 49-60.] | |
| [17] | Lozito J. P., & Mulligan N. W . (2010). Exploring the role of attention during implicit memory retrieval. Journal of Memory and Language, 63(3), 387-399. |
| [18] | Lucas H. D., Taylor J. R., Henson R. N., & Paller K. A . (2012). Many roads lead to recognition: electrophysiological correlates of familiarity derived from short-term masked repetition priming. Neuropsychologia, 50(13), 3041-3052. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.07.036URLpmid: 23010141 |
| [19] | Marques V. R. S., Spataro P., Cestari V., Sciarretta A., & Rossi- Arnaud C . (2016). Testing the Identification/Production hypothesis of implicit memory in Schizophrenia: The role of response competition. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 22( 3), 314-321. doi: 10.1017/S1355617715001198URLpmid: 26689111 |
| [20] | Martens U., & Kiefer M . (2009). Specifying attentional top-down influences on subsequent unconscious semantic processing. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 5, 56-68. doi: 10.2478/v10053-008-0067-3URLpmid: 20523850 |
| [21] | Meng Y. F., & Guo C. Y . (2007). The Asymmetric Effect of Interference at Encoding or Retrieval on Implicit and Explicit Memory. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(4), 579-588. |
| [ 孟迎芳, 郭春彦 . (2007). 编码与提取干扰对内隐和外显记忆的非对称性影响. 心理学报, 39(4), 579-588.] | |
| [22] | Meng Y. F., & Guo C. Y . (2009). The Asymmetric Relationship Between Encoding and Retrieval in Implicit and Explicit Memory. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41(8), 694-705. URLpmid: 17039771 |
| [ 孟迎芳, 郭春彦 . (2009). 内隐与外显记忆的编码与提取非对称性关系. 心理学报, 41(8), 694-705.] pmid: 17039771 | |
| [23] | Meng Y. F., & Yu H. L . (2012). The dissociation between encoding and retrieval in implicit and explicit memory. Journal of South China Normal University (Social Science Edition), (3), 50-55. |
| [ 孟迎芳, 于海莉 . (2012). 内隐记忆与外显记忆编码与提取加工的分离. 华南师范大学学报(社会科学版), (3), 50-55.] | |
| [24] | Miyoshi K., & Ashida H . (2014). Priming and implicit recognition depend on similar temporal changes in perceptual representations. Acta Psychologica, 148, 6-11. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.12.012URLpmid: 24486801 |
| [25] | Moors A., & de Houwer J . (2006). Automaticity: a theoretical and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 297-326. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.297URLpmid: 16536645 |
| [26] | Mulligan N. W., & Lozito J. P . (2006). An asymmetry between memory encoding and retrieval Revelation, generation, and transfer-appropriate processing. Psychological Science, 17(1), 7-11. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01657.xURLpmid: 16371137 |
| [27] | Newell B. R., Cavenett T., & Anderws S . (2008). On the immunity of perceptual implicit memory to manipulations of attention. Memory & Cognition, 36(4), 725-734. doi: 10.3758/mc.36.4.725URLpmid: 18604956 |
| [28] | Prull M. W., Lawless C., Marshall H. M., & Sherman A. T . (2016). Effects of divided attention at retrieval on conceptual implicit memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1-13. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00001URLpmid: 26858668 |
| [29] | Prull M. W., & Spataro P . (2017). Editorial: The role of the distinctions between identification/production and perceptual/ conceptual processes in implicit memory: Findings from cognitive psychology, neuroscience and neuropsychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 8-10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00008URLpmid: 28194118 |
| [30] | Rasmussen I. A., Xu J., Antonsen I. K., Brunner J., Skandsen T., & Axelson D. E., … Haberg A . (2008). Simple dual tasking recruits prefrontal cortices in chronic severe traumatic brain injury patients, but not in controls. Journal of Neurotrauma, 25(9), 1057-1070. doi: 10.1089/neu.2008.0520URLpmid: 18729718 |
| [31] | Sbicigo J. B., Janczura G. A., Salles. J . (2017). The role of attention in perceptual and conceptual priming. Psychology & Neuroscience, 10(2):117-131. |
| [32] | Sheldon S. A., & Moscovitch M . (2010). Recollective performance advantages for implicit memory tasks. Memory, 18(7), 681-97. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2010.499876URLpmid: 20721805 |
| [33] | Spaniol J., Davidson P. S. R., Kim A. S. N., Han H., Moscovitch M., & Grady C. L . (2009). Event-related fMRI studies of episodic encoding and retrieval: meta-analyses using activation likelihood estimation. Neuropsychologia, 47(8-9), 1765-1779. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.02.028URLpmid: 19428409 |
| [34] | Spataro P., Cestari V., & Rossi-Arnaud C . (2011). The relationship between divided attention and implicit memory: a meta-analysis. Acta Psychologica, 136(3), 329-339. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.12.007URLpmid: 21257140 |
| [35] | Spataro P., Mulligan N. W., & Rossi-Arnaud C . (2013). Divided attention can enhance memory encoding: the attentional boost effect in implicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 39(4), 1223-1231. doi: 10.1037/a0030907URLpmid: 23356238 |
| [36] | Spataro P., Saraulli D., Mulligan N. W., Cestari V., Costanzi M., & Rossi-Arnaud C . (2017). Not all identification tasks are born equal: testing the involvement of production processes in perceptual identification and lexical decision. Psychological Research, 82(4), 685-699. doi: 10.1007/s00426-017-0852-zURLpmid: 28285363 |
| [37] | Tan J. F., Wu S. S., Xu L., Wang L. J., & Chen A. T . (2013). Prefrontal cortex with executive functions involved in dual- task performance. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(12), 2127-2135. |
| [ 谭金凤, 伍姗姗, 徐雷, 王丽君, 陈安涛 . (2013). 前额叶皮层与双任务加工执行功能. 心理科学进展, 21(12), 2127-2135.] | |
| [38] | Tombu M. N., Asplund C. L., Dux P. E., Godwin D., Martin J. W., & Marois R . (2011). A unified attentional bottleneck in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(33), 13426-13431. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1103583108URLpmid: 21825137 |
| [39] | Wang D., Wang T., Qin S., & Zhang J. J . (2019). Location effect of Chinese wordable components in the component priming paradigm. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(2), 163-176. |
| [ 王丹, 王婷, 秦松, 张积家 . (2019). 部件启动范式下可成字部件的位置效应. 心理学报, 51(2), 163-176.] | |
| [40] | Winer B. J., Brown D. R., & Michels K. M . (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill. |
相关文章 15
| [1] | 孟迎芳, 董月晴, 陈荃. 概念内隐记忆中的注意促进效应[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(5): 469-480. |
| [2] | 林静远, 林无忌, 孟迎芳. 尼古丁对内隐记忆与外显记忆的影响 *[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(9): 940-952. |
| [3] | 林无忌, 孟迎芳, 林静远. 提取干扰对内隐记忆的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(7): 897-908. |
| [4] | 叶晓红;陈幼贞;孟迎芳. 回想、熟悉性与启动在编码过程的认知神经机制[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(9): 1101-1110. |
| [5] | 刘英杰;魏萍;丁锦红;郭春彦. 内隐重复效应影响外显工作记忆的年龄差异[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(3): 321-330. |
| [6] | 孟迎芳. 内隐与外显记忆编码阶段脑机制的重叠与分离[J]. 心理学报, 2012, 44(1): 30-39. |
| [7] | 王娟,张积家,谢书书,袁爱玲. 结合东巴文学习汉字对幼儿汉字字形记忆的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2011, 43(05): 519-533. |
| [8] | 李月婷,李琦,郭春彦. 内隐和外显记忆测验中情绪词差异的ERP研究[J]. 心理学报, 2010, 42(07): 735-742. |
| [9] | 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. |
| [10] | 孟迎芳, 郭春彦 . 内隐与外显记忆的编码与提取非对称性关系[J]. 心理学报, 2009, 41(08): 694-705. |
| [11] | 孟迎芳,郭春彦. 编码与提取干扰对内隐和外显记忆的非对称性影响[J]. 心理学报, 2007, 39(04): 579-588. |
| [12] | 孟迎芳,郭春彦. 内隐记忆和外显记忆的脑机制分离：面孔再认的ERP研究[J]. 心理学报, 2006, 38(01): 15-21. |
| [13] | 林树. 对广告信息加工的性别差异[J]. 心理学报, 2005, 37(05): 694-701. |
| [14] | 杨炯炯, ,翁旭初,管林初, ,匡培梓, ,张懋植, ,孙伟建,于生元5. 额叶在启动效应中的作用机制：对额叶损伤病人颜色命名和词命名任务的分析[J]. 心理学报, 2003, 35(05): 610-616. |
| [15] | 杨炯炯,翁旭初,管林初,张懋植,孙伟建,于生元. 额叶参与对新异联系的启动效应——来自脑损伤病人的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2002, 34(01): 37-43. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4701
