基于客体的一致性效应的产生机制

删除或更新信息，请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01

宋晓蕾(

), 王丹, 张欣欣, 贾筱倩

陕西师范大学心理学院; 陕西省行为与认知神经科学重点实验室, 西安 710062

收稿日期:2019-09-11出版日期:2020-06-25发布日期:2020-04-22
通讯作者:宋晓蕾E-mail:songxiaolei@snnu.edu.cn

基金资助:* 国家自然科学基金面上项目(31671147);载人航天工程航天医学实验领域项目(HYZHXM3001);中央高校基本科研业务费重点项目(GK202002010);中央高校基本科研业务费一般项目(19SZYB06)

The underlying mechanism of object-based Correspondence effect

SONG Xiaolei(

), WANG Dan, ZHANG Xinxin, JIA Xiaoqian

School of Psychology, Shaanxi Normal University; Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Behavior and Cognitive Neuroscience, Xi'an 710062, China

Received:2019-09-11Online:2020-06-25Published:2020-04-22
Contact:SONG Xiaolei E-mail:songxiaolei@snnu.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用具有不同深度信息的剪影和图片刺激为材料, 要求被试完成形状判断任务, 探究基于客体的一致性效应的产生机制。实验1中客体刺激呈现于屏幕中央位置; 实验2进一步增强了刺激空间呈现的左右位置倾向; 实验3则通过交叉手的范式分离了反应位置和反应手不同的编码对一致性效应的作用。结果发现：当刺激不存在显著的左右位置信息时, 剪影刺激出现了一致性效应, 图片则没有; 而当刺激的空间位置信息显著时, 剪影和图片均出现了一致性效应, 这一效应在反应位置和反应手编码分离后仍然存在。因此得出结论：空间位置编码假说对解释基于客体的一致性效应的产生有重要作用。

图/表 13

图1实验1刺激注：图中线条是方便观察刺激位置, 正式实验中并不存在, 下同

图2实验流程图

图2实验流程图

表1三个实验反应时(ms)的描述性统计分析(M ± SD)

实验	刺激类型	一致	不一致	效应量
1	剪影(n = 28)	590 ± 96	610 ± 103	20 ± 33^**
1	图片(n = 30)	474 ± 100	475 ± 102	1 ± 21
2	剪影(n = 28)	568 ± 95	605 ± 107	37 ± 23^***
2	图片(n = 28)	485 ± 81	516 ± 101	30 ± 32^***
3	剪影(n = 28)	643 ± 112	657 ± 116	14 ± 29^*
3	图片(n = 28)	516 ± 57	526 ± 62	10 ± 19^*

表1三个实验反应时(ms)的描述性统计分析(M ± SD)

实验	刺激类型	一致	不一致	效应量
1	剪影(n = 28)	590 ± 96	610 ± 103	20 ± 33^**
1	图片(n = 30)	474 ± 100	475 ± 102	1 ± 21
2	剪影(n = 28)	568 ± 95	605 ± 107	37 ± 23^***
2	图片(n = 28)	485 ± 81	516 ± 101	30 ± 32^***
3	剪影(n = 28)	643 ± 112	657 ± 116	14 ± 29^*
3	图片(n = 28)	516 ± 57	526 ± 62	10 ± 19^*

表2三个实验错误率(%)的描述性统计分析(M ± SD)

实验	刺激类型	一致	不一致	效应量
1	剪影(n=28)	3.49 ± 3.98	5.84 ± 6.13	2.35 ± 4.42^**
1	图片(n=30)	2.46 ± 2.87	2.25 ± 1.98	-0.21 ± 2.07
2	剪影(n=28)	2.98 ± 2.76	5.80 ± 4.88	2.82 ± 4.40^**
2	图片(n=28)	1.93 ± 1.53	5.19 ± 3.82	3.27 ± 3.12^**
3	剪影(n=28)	2.86 ± 2.31	3.92 ± 2.46	1.06 ± 2.28^*
3	图片(n=28)	2.19 ± 2.24	2.90 ± 2.24	0.71 ± 2.03^*

表2三个实验错误率(%)的描述性统计分析(M ± SD)

实验	刺激类型	一致	不一致	效应量
1	剪影(n=28)	3.49 ± 3.98	5.84 ± 6.13	2.35 ± 4.42^**
1	图片(n=30)	2.46 ± 2.87	2.25 ± 1.98	-0.21 ± 2.07
2	剪影(n=28)	2.98 ± 2.76	5.80 ± 4.88	2.82 ± 4.40^**
2	图片(n=28)	1.93 ± 1.53	5.19 ± 3.82	3.27 ± 3.12^**
3	剪影(n=28)	2.86 ± 2.31	3.92 ± 2.46	1.06 ± 2.28^*
3	图片(n=28)	2.19 ± 2.24	2.90 ± 2.24	0.71 ± 2.03^*

图3实验1剪影和图片刺激反应时的一致性效应

图4实验1效应量反应时分布图

图5实验2和实验3刺激

图6实验2 剪影和图片刺激反应时的一致性效应

图7实验2效应量反应时分布图

图8两种刺激类型实验1和实验2的一致性效应比较

图9实验3 剪影和图片刺激反应时的一致性效应

图10实验3效应量反应时分布图

图11两种刺激类型实验2和实验3一致性效应比较

参考文献 37

[1]	Ambrosecchia, M., Marino, B. F. M., Gawryszewski, L. G., & Riggio, L . (2015). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility and affordance effects are not ruled by the same mechanisms. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 283.
[2]	Ansorge, U., & Wuhr, P . (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 30(2), 365-377.
[3]	Azaad, S., Laham, S.M., & Shields, P . (2019). A meta-analysis of the object-based compatibility effect. Cognition, 190, 105-127. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.028 URL
[4]	Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E. J., & Kumar, R . (2018). Time course of motor affordances evoked by pictured objects and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(1), 53-68.
[5]	Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W . (2010). The object-based Simon effect: Grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(4), 853-861.
[6]	Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W . (2011). Correspondence effects for objects with opposing left and right protrusions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(3), 737-749.
[7]	Cho, D. T., & Proctor, R. W . (2013). Object-based Correspondence effects for action-relevant and surface- property judgments with keypress responses: Evidence for a basis in spatial coding. Psychological Research, 77(5), 618-636.
[8]	Dagaev, N., Shtyrov, Y., & Myachykov, A . (2017). The role of executive control in the activation of manual affordances. Psychological Research, 81(6), 1110-1124.
[9]	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.
[10]	Ellis, R., & Tucker, M . (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91(4), 451-471. doi: 10.1348/000712600161934 URL
[11]	Fan, R. J., Li, Q., & Zhao, J . (2015). Research on the consistency of human interface design in cockpit of commercial aircraft. Opportunities for Standardization Reform and Development--The 12th China Standardization Forum.
	[ 范瑞杰, 李倩, 赵健 . (2015). 商用飞机驾驶舱人机界面设计一致性理念研究. 标准化改革与发展之机遇——第十二届中国标准化论坛论文集.]
[12]	Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M . (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(3), 199-210.
[13]	Gibson, J. J . (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds). Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp.67-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[14]	Gibson, J. J . (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
[15]	Gibson, J. J . (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (Original work published 1979)
[16]	Lien, M. C., Gray, D., Jardin, E., & Proctor, R. W . (2014). Further evidence that object-based Correspondence effects are primarily modulated by object location not by grasping affordance. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 679-698.
[17]	Ma, X . (2013). Consistency research of adaptive interface of intelligent mobile terminal (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications.
	[ 马璇 . (2013). 智能移动终端自适应界面的一致性研究 (博士学位论文). 北京邮电大学).]
[18]	Oldfield, R. C . (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97-113.
[19]	Pappas, Z . (2014). Dissociating Simon and affordance compatibility effects: Silhouettes and photographs. Cognition, 133(3), 716-728.
[20]	Pellicano, A., Iani, C., Borghi, A. M., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R . (2010). Simon-like and functional affordance effects with tools: The effects of object perceptual discrimination and object action state. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(11), 2190-2201. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2010.486903 URL
[21]	Pellicano, A., Koch, I., & Binkofski, F . (2017). Location- coding account versus affordance-activation account in handle-to-hand Correspondence effects: Evidence of Simon- like effects based on the coding of action direction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(9), 1647-1666.
[22]	Phillips, J. C., & Ward, R . (2002). S-R Correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation. Visual Cognition, 9(4-5), 540-558.
[23]	Proctor, R. W., Lien, M. C., & Thompson, L . (2017). Do silhouettes and photographs produce fundamentally different object-based Correspondence effects? Cognition, 169, 91-101.
[24]	Proctor, R. W., Vu, K. P. L., & Nicoletti, R . (2003). Does right-left prevalence occur for the Simon effect? Perception and Psychophysics, 65(8), 1318-1329.
[25]	Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., Pelosi, A., & Umiltà, C . (2004). Right-left prevalence effect with horizontal and vertical effectors. Perception and Psychophysics, 66(2), 255-263.
[26]	Rubichi, S., Vu, K. P. L., Nicoletti, R., & Proctor, R. W . (2006). Spatial coding in two dimensions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13(2), 201-216.
[27]	Saccone, E. J., Churches, O., & Nicholls, M. E. R . (2016). Explicit spatial compatibility is not critical to the object handle effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(10), 1643-1653.
[28]	Song, X., Chen, J., & Proctor, R. W . (2014). Correspondence effects with torches: Grasping affordance or visual feature asymmetry? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(4), 665-675.
[29]	Styrkowiec, P. P., Nowik, A. M., Kroliczak, G . (2019). The neural underpinnings of haptically guided functional grasping of tools: An fMRI study. Neuroimage, 194, 149-162.
[30]	Symes, E., Ellis, R., & Tucker, M . (2005). Dissociating object- based and space-based affordances. Visual Cognition, 12(7), 1337-1361.
[31]	Tipper, S. P., Paul, M. A., & Hayes, A. E . (2006). Vision-for- action: The effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(3), 493-498.
[32]	Tucker, M., & Ellis, R . (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830-846. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.24.3.830 URL
[33]	Tucker, M., & Ellis, R . (2004). Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychologica, 116(2), 185-203.
[34]	Vainio, L., Ellis, R., Tucker, M., & Symes, E . (2007). Local and global affordances and manual planning. Experimental Brain Research, 179(4), 583-594.
[35]	Warren, W. H . (1988). Action modes and laws of control for the visual guidance of action. Advances in Psychology, 50, 339-379.
[36]	Wiegand, K., & Wascher, E . (2007). Response coding in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 71(4), 401-410.
[37]	Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W . (2012). Multidimensional vector model of stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Review, 119(2), 272-303.