), 钱宗愉1, 朱雪冰2() 1中国人民大学心理学系, 北京 100872
2上海外国语大学, 上海 201620
收稿日期:2020-03-05出版日期:2021-01-25发布日期:2020-11-24通讯作者:张清芳,朱雪冰E-mail:qingfang.zhang@ruc.edu.cn;zhuxb@shisu.edu.cn基金资助:* 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)项目资助(18XNLG28)The multiple phonological activation in Chinese spoken word production: An ERP study in a word translation task
ZHANG Qingfang1(), QIAN Zongyu1, ZHU Xuebing2() 1Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
2Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai 201620, China
Received:2020-03-05Online:2021-01-25Published:2020-11-24Contact:ZHANG Qingfang,ZHU Xuebing E-mail:qingfang.zhang@ruc.edu.cn;zhuxb@shisu.edu.cn摘要/Abstract
摘要： 口语词汇产生过程中, 非目标词是否会产生音韵激活是独立两阶段模型和交互激活模型的争论焦点之一。研究运用事件相关电位技术, 考察了被试在翻译命名任务中是否受到背景图片音韵或语义干扰词的影响。行为反应时中未发现显著的音韵效应, 而语义效应显著, 表明非目标词不会产生音韵激活。事件相关电位的结果显示在目标单词呈现后的400~600 ms时间窗口中出现了显著的语义效应, 在600~700 ms时间窗口内出现了边缘显著的语义效应和音韵效应, 均表现为相关条件比无关条件波幅更正。上述结果表明在将英语翻译成汉语的过程中, 尽管在脑电上呈现出可能存在微弱的多重音韵激活, 但行为结果并不会显示出非目标项的音韵激活。研究结果支持了汉语口语词汇产生遵循独立两阶段模式的观点。
图/表 9
表1实验材料相关属性
| 实验材料属性 | 音韵条件 | 语义条件 |
|---|---|---|
| 英文单词平均log词频 (次/百万) | 1.62 ± 0.55 | 1.05 ± 0.57 |
| 英文单词音素数量 | 4.89 ± 1.61 | 4.44 ± 1.61 |
| 汉语对译词平均log词频 (次/百万) | 4.40 ± 0.59 | 3.70 ± 0.55 |
| 汉语对译词音节数 | 2 | 2 |
表1实验材料相关属性
| 实验材料属性 | 音韵条件 | 语义条件 |
|---|---|---|
| 英文单词平均log词频 (次/百万) | 1.62 ± 0.55 | 1.05 ± 0.57 |
| 英文单词音素数量 | 4.89 ± 1.61 | 4.44 ± 1.61 |
| 汉语对译词平均log词频 (次/百万) | 4.40 ± 0.59 | 3.70 ± 0.55 |
| 汉语对译词音节数 | 2 | 2 |
图1不同条件下单词翻译潜伏期 注：图中误差棒为95% CI
图1不同条件下单词翻译潜伏期 注：图中误差棒为95% CI表2以单词翻译潜伏期为因变量的混合线性模型的固定效应(考虑重复次数时)
| 自变量 | β | SE | df | t | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 截距 | 955.72 | 14.67 | 52.35 | 65.13 | < 0.001 |
| 相关类型 | 13.40 | 7.61 | 8254.62 | 1.76 | 0.078 |
| 相关性 | -0.85 | 7.59 | 8254.33 | -0.11 | 0.911 |
| 重复次数 | -77.95 | 7.56 | 8254.10 | -10.31 | < 0.001 |
| 相关类型×相关性 | 47.64 | 10.79 | 8254.57 | 4.42 | < 0.001 |
| 相关类型×重复次数 | 12.10 | 10.72 | 8254.17 | 1.13 | 0.259 |
| 相关性×重复次数 | 9.03 | 10.70 | 8254.12 | 0.84 | 0.399 |
| 相关类型×相关性×重复次数 | -39.58 | 15.20 | 8254.18 | -2.60 | 0.009 |
表2以单词翻译潜伏期为因变量的混合线性模型的固定效应(考虑重复次数时)
| 自变量 | β | SE | df | t | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 截距 | 955.72 | 14.67 | 52.35 | 65.13 | < 0.001 |
| 相关类型 | 13.40 | 7.61 | 8254.62 | 1.76 | 0.078 |
| 相关性 | -0.85 | 7.59 | 8254.33 | -0.11 | 0.911 |
| 重复次数 | -77.95 | 7.56 | 8254.10 | -10.31 | < 0.001 |
| 相关类型×相关性 | 47.64 | 10.79 | 8254.57 | 4.42 | < 0.001 |
| 相关类型×重复次数 | 12.10 | 10.72 | 8254.17 | 1.13 | 0.259 |
| 相关性×重复次数 | 9.03 | 10.70 | 8254.12 | 0.84 | 0.399 |
| 相关类型×相关性×重复次数 | -39.58 | 15.20 | 8254.18 | -2.60 | 0.009 |
表3400~700 ms时间窗口内不同兴趣区的音韵效应和语义效应
| 时间窗口 | ROIs | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 左 | 中 | 右 | ||||||||||||||||
| 前 | 中 | 后 | 前 | 中 | 后 | 前 | 中 | 后 | ||||||||||
| F | η2 p | F | η2 p | F | η2 p | F | η2 p | F | η2 p | F | η2 p | F | η2 p | F | η2 p | F | η2 p | |
| 音韵效应 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 400~500 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 500~600 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 600~700 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 5.45? | 0.17 | — | — | 5.65? | 0.18 | 6.75? | 0.21 | — | — |
| 语义效应 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 400~500 ms | 3.96? | 0.13 | 12.67** | 0.33 | 12.99** | 0.33 | 11.56** | 0.31 | 10.00** | 0.28 | 4.67* | 0.15 | 6.55* | 0.20 | 7.07* | 0.21 | 5.97* | 0.19 |
| 500~600 ms | 3.50? | 0.12 | 14.20** | 0.35 | 11.71** | 0.31 | 8.34* | 0.24 | 15.03** | 0.37 | 8.35* | 0.24 | 6.66* | 0.20 | 11.72** | 0.31 | 6.81* | 0.21 |
| 600~700 ms | — | — | 5.81? | 0.18 | 5.90? | 0.19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 5.48? | 0.17 | — | — |
表3400~700 ms时间窗口内不同兴趣区的音韵效应和语义效应
| 时间窗口 | ROIs | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 左 | 中 | 右 | ||||||||||||||||
| 前 | 中 | 后 | 前 | 中 | 后 | 前 | 中 | 后 | ||||||||||
| F | η2 p | F | η2 p | F | η2 p | F | η2 p | F | η2 p | F | η2 p | F | η2 p | F | η2 p | F | η2 p | |
| 音韵效应 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 400~500 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 500~600 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 600~700 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 5.45? | 0.17 | — | — | 5.65? | 0.18 | 6.75? | 0.21 | — | — |
| 语义效应 | ||||||||||||||||||
| 400~500 ms | 3.96? | 0.13 | 12.67** | 0.33 | 12.99** | 0.33 | 11.56** | 0.31 | 10.00** | 0.28 | 4.67* | 0.15 | 6.55* | 0.20 | 7.07* | 0.21 | 5.97* | 0.19 |
| 500~600 ms | 3.50? | 0.12 | 14.20** | 0.35 | 11.71** | 0.31 | 8.34* | 0.24 | 15.03** | 0.37 | 8.35* | 0.24 | 6.66* | 0.20 | 11.72** | 0.31 | 6.81* | 0.21 |
| 600~700 ms | — | — | 5.81? | 0.18 | 5.90? | 0.19 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | 5.48? | 0.17 | — | — |
表4400~700 ms时间窗口内不同兴趣区音韵效应和语义效应的BF10值
| 时间窗口 | ROIs | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 左 | 中 | 右 | |||||||
| 前 | 中 | 后 | 前 | 中 | 后 | 前 | 中 | 后 | |
| 音韵效应 | |||||||||
| 400~500 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 500~600 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 600~700 ms | — | — | — | — | 2.01 | — | 2.17 | 3.27 | — |
| 语义效应 | |||||||||
| 400~500 ms | 1.12 | 24.44 | 27.00 | 17.18 | 10.29 | 1.49 | 3.04 | 3.68 | 2.45 |
| 500~600 ms | 0.93 | 39.14 | 18.03 | 5.82 | 50.25 | 5.83 | 3.17 | 18.09 | 3.35 |
| 600~700 ms | — | 2.30 | 2.38 | — | — | — | — | 2.04 | — |
表4400~700 ms时间窗口内不同兴趣区音韵效应和语义效应的BF10值
| 时间窗口 | ROIs | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 左 | 中 | 右 | |||||||
| 前 | 中 | 后 | 前 | 中 | 后 | 前 | 中 | 后 | |
| 音韵效应 | |||||||||
| 400~500 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 500~600 ms | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | — |
| 600~700 ms | — | — | — | — | 2.01 | — | 2.17 | 3.27 | — |
| 语义效应 | |||||||||
| 400~500 ms | 1.12 | 24.44 | 27.00 | 17.18 | 10.29 | 1.49 | 3.04 | 3.68 | 2.45 |
| 500~600 ms | 0.93 | 39.14 | 18.03 | 5.82 | 50.25 | 5.83 | 3.17 | 18.09 | 3.35 |
| 600~700 ms | — | 2.30 | 2.38 | — | — | — | — | 2.04 | — |
图2语义效应和音韵效应的ERP波形和差异波地形图 注：蓝色阴影部分为p < 0.05, 灰色阴影部分为0.05 < p < 0.1, p值经FDR校正
图2语义效应和音韵效应的ERP波形和差异波地形图 注：蓝色阴影部分为p < 0.05, 灰色阴影部分为0.05 < p < 0.1, p值经FDR校正
图3400~600 ms时间窗口下不同兴趣区语义效应的平均波幅 注：图中误差棒均为95% CI, p值经FDR校正
图3400~600 ms时间窗口下不同兴趣区语义效应的平均波幅 注：图中误差棒均为95% CI, p值经FDR校正
图4400~600 ms时间窗口内在中后区域语义相关与语义无关条件间的翻译潜伏期差值与对应条件的ERP波幅差值之间的相关。灰色散点为剔除的奇异值。
图4400~600 ms时间窗口内在中后区域语义相关与语义无关条件间的翻译潜伏期差值与对应条件的ERP波幅差值之间的相关。灰色散点为剔除的奇异值。
图5图词干扰范式下单词翻译任务的汉语口语词汇产生模型
图5图词干扰范式下单词翻译任务的汉语口语词汇产生模型参考文献 63
| [1] | Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412. |
| [2] | Bloem, I., & La Heij, W.(2003). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: Implications for models of lexical access in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(3), 468-488. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00503-XURL |
| [3] | Bloem, I., van den Boogaard, S., & La Heij, W. (2004). Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in language production: Further evidence for the conceptual selection model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 51(2), 307-323. |
| [4] | Boukadi, M., Davies, R. A. I., & Wilson, M. A. (2015). Bilingual lexical selection as a dynamic process: Evidence from Arabic-French bilinguals. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(4), 297-313. doi: 10.1037/cep0000063URLpmid: 26372057 |
| [5] | Cai, X., Yin, Y. L., & Zhang, Q. F. (2020). The roles of syllables and phonemes during phonological encoding in Chinese spoken word production: A topographic ERP study. Neuropsychologia, 140, 107382 doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107382URL |
| [6] | Chen, B. G., Wang, L. X., & Peng, D. L. (2003). The time course of graphic, phonological, and semantic information processing in Chinese character recognition (II). Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(5), 576-581. |
| [ 陈宝国, 王立新, 彭聃龄. (2003). 汉字识别中形音义激活时间进程的研究(II). 心理学报, 35(5), 576-581.] | |
| [7] | Chinese Linguistic Data Consortium. (2003). 现代汉语通用词表[Chinese lexicon] (CLDC-LAC-2003-001). Beijing, China: Tsinghua University, State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Technology and Systems, and Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Automation. |
| [8] | Christoffels, I. K., Ganushchak, L., & Koester, D. (2013). Language conflict in translation: An ERP study of translation production. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 646-664. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2013.821127URL |
| [9] | Costa, A., Caramazza, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 26(5), 1283-1296. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1283URL |
| [10] | Costa, A., Strijkers, K., Martin, C. D., & Thierry, G. (2009). The time course of word retrieval revealed by event-related brain potentials during overt speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(50), 21442-21446. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908921106URLpmid: 19934043 |
| [11] | Damian, M. F., & Bowers, J. S. (2003). Effects of orthography on speech production in a form-preparation paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(1), 119-132. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00008-1URL |
| [12] | Damian, M. F., & Martin, R. C. (1999). Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25(2), 345-361. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.345URL |
| [13] | Davis, C. J. (2005). N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 65-70. URLpmid: 16097345 |
| [14] | Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93(3), 283-321. URLpmid: 3749399 |
| [15] | Dell, G. S. (1988). The retrieval of phonological forms in production: Tests of predictions from a connectionist model. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(2), 124-142. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90070-8URL |
| [16] | 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 URLpmid: 21833238 |
| [17] | Ganushchak, L. Y., Christoffels, I. K., & Schiller, N. O. (2011). The use of electroencephalography in language production research: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 208. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00208URLpmid: 21909333 |
| [18] | Humphreys, K. R., Boyd, C. H., & Watter, S. (2010). Phonological facilitation from pictures in a word association task: Evidence for routine cascaded processing in spoken word production. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(12), 2289-2296. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2010.509802URL |
| [19] | Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. (2004). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition, 92(1-2), 101-144. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2002.06.001URLpmid: 15037128 |
| [20] | JASP Team. (2017). JASP (Version 0.11.1) [Computer software]. |
| [21] | Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. |
| [22] | Jescheniak, J. D., Hahne, A., Hoffmann, S., & Wagner, V. (2006). Phonological activation of category coordinates during speech planning is observable in children but not in adults: Evidence for cascaded processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 32(2), 373-386. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.373URL |
| [23] | Jescheniak, J. D., Hahne, A., & Schriefers, H. (2003). Information flow in the mental lexicon during speech planning: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 15(3), 261-276. doi: 10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00198-2URL |
| [24] | Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (1998). Discrete serial versus cascaded processing in lexical access in speech production: Further evidence from the coactivation of near-synonyms. Journal of Experimental Psychology- Learning Memory and Cognition, 24(5), 1256-1274. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.24.5.1256URL |
| [25] | Jost, L. B., Radman, N., Buetler, K. A., & Annoni, J. M. (2018). Behavioral and electrophysiological signatures of word translation processes. Neuropsychologia, 109, 245-254. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.12.034URLpmid: 29275005 |
| [26] | Kuipers, J. R., & La Heij, W.(2009). The limitations of cascading in the speech production system. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(1), 120-135. doi: 10.1080/01690960802234177URL |
| [27] | Kurtz, F., Schriefers, H., Madebach, A., & Jescheniak, J. D. (2018). Incremental learning in word production: Tracing the fate of non-selected alternative picture names. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(10), 1586-1602. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000558URLpmid: 29975094 |
| [28] | La Heij, W., Hooglander, A., Kerling, R., & van der Velden, E. (1996). Nonverbal context effects in forward and backward word translation: Evidence for concept mediation. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(5), 648-665. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1996.0034URL |
| [29] | Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1-75. |
| [30] | Madebach, A., Jescheniak, J. D., Oppermann, F., & Schriefers, H. (2011). Ease of processing constrains the activation flow in the conceptual-lexical system during speech planning. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 37(3), 649-660. doi: 10.1037/a0022330URL |
| [31] | Marsman, M., & Wagenmakers, E-J. (2017). Bayesian benefits with JASP. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14(5), 545-555. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2016.1259614URL |
| [32] | Navarrete, E., & Costa, A. (2005). Phonological activation of ignored pictures: Further evidence for a cascade model of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(3), 359-377. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2005.05.001URL |
| [33] | Navarrete, E., & Costa, A. (2009). The distractor picture paradox in speech production: Evidence from the word translation task. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 38(6), 527-547. doi: 10.1007/s10936-009-9119-1URL |
| [34] | Oppermann, F., Jescheniak, J. D., & Gorges, F. (2014). Resolving competition when naming an object in a multiple-object display. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(1), 78-84. URLpmid: 23761213 |
| [35] | Oppermann, F., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (2008). Conceptual coherence affects phonological activation of context objects during object naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 34(3), 587-601. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.587URL |
| [36] | Ouyang, G., Sommer, W., Zhou, C. S., Aristei, S., Pinkpank, T., & Rahman, R. A. (2016). Articulation artifacts during overt language production in event-related brain potentials: Description and correction. Brain Topography, 29(6), 791-813. URLpmid: 27509898 |
| [37] | Peterson, R. R., & Savoy, P. (1998). Lexical selection and phonological encoding during language production: Evidence for cascaded processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 24(3), 539-557. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.24.3.539URL |
| [38] | Python, G., Fargier, R., & Laganaro, M. (2018). ERP evidence of distinct processes underlying semantic facilitation and interference in word production. Cortex, 99, 1-12. URLpmid: 29121484 |
| [39] | Qu Q. Q., Damian, M. F., &Kazanina, N. (2012). Sound-sized segments are significant for Mandarin speakers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(35), 14265-14270. URLpmid: 22891321 |
| [40] | Qu, Q. Q., Damian, M. F., Zhang, Q. F., & Zhu, X. B. (2011). Phonology contributes to writing: Evidence from written word production in a nonalphabetic script. Psychological Science, 22(9), 1107-1112. URLpmid: 21775652 |
| [41] | Rahman, R. A., & Melinger, A. (2009). Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(5), 713-734. doi: 10.1080/01690960802597250URL |
| [42] | Rahman, R. A., & Melinger A. (2019). Semantic processing during language production: An update of the swinging lexical network. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(9), 1176-1192. doi: 10.1080/23273798.2019.1599970URL |
| [43] | Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42(1-3), 107-142. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(92)90041-fURLpmid: 1582154 |
| [44] | Roelofs, A. (1997). The weaver model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 64(3), 249-284. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(97)00027-9URLpmid: 9426503 |
| [45] | Roelofs, A. (2008). Tracing attention and the activation flow in spoken word planning using eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 34(2), 353-368. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.353URL |
| [46] | 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. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.686URL |
| [47] | 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. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.22.4.896URL |
| [48] | Wagenmakers, E. J., Love, J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., ... Morey, R. D. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 58-76. URLpmid: 28685272 |
| [49] | Wang, C., &Zhang Q. F. (2015). Phonological codes constrain output of orthographic codes via sublexical and lexical routes in Chinese written production. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0124470. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124470URLpmid: 25879662 |
| [50] | Zhang, Q. F., Chen, H.-C., Weekes, B. S., & Yang, Y. F. (2009). Independent effects of orthographic and phonological facilitation on spoken word production in Mandarin. Language and Speech, 52, 113-126. doi: 10.1177/0023830908099885URLpmid: 19334418 |
| [51] | Zhang, Q. F., & Damian, M. F. (2010). Impact of phonology on the generation of handwritten responses: Evidence from picture-word interference tasks. Memory and Cognition, 38(4), 519-528. doi: 10.3758/MC.38.4.519URLpmid: 20516232 |
| [52] | Zhang, Q. F., & Damian, M. F. (2019). Syllables constitute proximate units for Mandarin speakers: Electrophysiological evidence from a masked priming task. Psychophysiology, 56(4), e13317. doi: 10.1111/psyp.13317URLpmid: 30657602 |
| [53] | 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. doi: 10.1080/01690960802042133URL |
| [54] | Zhang, Q. F., & Yang, Y. F. (2003). The determiners of picture-naming latency. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(4), 447-454. |
| [ 张清芳, 杨玉芳. (2003). 影响图画命名时间的因素. 心理学报, 35(4), 447-454.] | |
| [55] | Zhang, Q. F., & Yang, Y. F. (2006). The interaction of lexical selection and phonological encoding in Chinese word production. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 38(4), 480-488. |
| [ 张清芳, 杨玉芳. (2006). 汉语词汇产生中词汇选择和音韵编码之间的交互作用. 心理学报, 38(4), 480-488.] | |
| [56] | Zhang, Q. F., & Zhu, X. B. (2016). It is not necessary to retrieve the phonological nodes of context objects for Chinese speakers. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1161. URLpmid: 27540369 |
| [57] | 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. doi: 10.1017/S0142716418000024URL |
| [58] | Zhao, H. R., La Heij, W., & Schiller, N. O. (2012). Orthographic and phonological facilitation in speech production: New evidence from picture naming in Chinese. Acta Psychologica, 139( 2), 272-280. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.005URLpmid: 22305351 |
| [59] | Zhou, X. L., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1999). Sublexcial processing in reading Chinese. In J. Wang, A. Inhoff, & H-C. Chen (Eds.), Reading Chinese script: A cognitive analysis (pp. 37-63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. |
| [60] | Zhou, X. L., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2000). The relative time course of semantic and phonological activation in reading Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1245-1265. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.26.5.1245URLpmid: 11009256 |
| [61] | 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. URLpmid: 25880902 |
| [62] | 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. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1129427URLpmid: 26730809 |
| [63] | Zhuang, J & Zhou, X. L. (2003). The interaction between semantics and phonology in the speech production of Chinese. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(3), 300-308. |
| [ 庄捷, 周晓林. (2003). 汉语词汇产生中语义、语音层次之间的交互作用. 心理学报, 35(3), 300-308.] |
相关文章 3
| [1] | 张清芳,王雪娇. 汉语口语词汇产生的音韵编码单元：内隐启动范式的ERP研究[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(4): 414-425. |
| [2] | 娄昊,李丛,张清芳. 习得年龄对客体和动作图画口语命名的不同影响：ERP研究[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(2): 143-153. |
| [3] | 张积家,姜敏敏. 形旁家族、声旁家族和高频同声旁字对形声字识别的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2008, 40(09): 947-960. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4854
