意义关联的注意定向效应：基于空间位置的抑制和捕获

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

王慧媛¹(

), 陈艾睿², 张明³^,⁴(

)

¹长春师范大学心理学系, 长春 130032
²苏州科技大学心理学系, 苏州 215009
³苏州大学心理学系
⁴苏州大学心理与行为科学研究中心, 苏州 215123

收稿日期:2020-03-05出版日期:2021-02-25发布日期:2020-12-29
通讯作者:王慧媛,张明E-mail:wanghuiyuan@ccsfu.edu.cn;psyzm@suda.edu.cn

基金资助:国家自然科学基金(31871092);吉林省教育厅“十三五”社会科学项目(JJKH20181210SK);长春师范大学人文社会科学基金项目(长师大社科合字[2017] 001号);教育部人文社会科学研究项目(20YJC190002);江苏省社会科学基金项目(20JYC008)

Meaningful contingent attentional orienting effects: Spatial location-based inhibition and capture

WANG Hui-Yuan¹(

), CHEN Ai-Rui², ZHANG Ming³^,⁴(

)

¹Department of Psychology, Changchun Normal University, Changchun 130032, China
²Department of Psychology, Suzhou University of Science and Technology, Suzhou 215009, China
³Department of Psychology, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, China
⁴Research Center for Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Soochow University, Suzhou 215123, China

Received:2020-03-05Online:2021-02-25Published:2020-12-29
Contact:WANG Hui-Yuan,ZHANG Ming E-mail:wanghuiyuan@ccsfu.edu.cn;psyzm@suda.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用线索化范式, 通过3个实验建立线索和靶子的意义关联, 考察了意义性线索在不同空间位置的注意定向效应。结果表明, 在下视野出现抑制效应, 且位置越下抑制效应越显著; 在上视野出现捕获效应, 且位置越上捕获效应越显著; 同时注意定向效应的程度受引导线索性质的影响。这些结果说明：(1)客体间的意义关联能够引导视觉空间注意, 表现出不同空间位置的注意定向效应; (2)客体性质能够影响意义关联的注意定向, 表现为客体的生动性越高, 调节能力越强, 抽象性越高, 调节能力越弱; (3)意义关联的注意定向具有规律性变化, 表现为基于空间位置的抑制和捕获效应。

图/表 10

图1实验1流程图

图1实验1流程图

表1实验1中线索靶子语义一致性、线索有效性和线索位置各条件结合下的平均反应时和正确率(M ± SD)

线索靶子语义一致性	线索位置
线索靶子语义一致性	上	右	下	左
语义一致
线索无效	523.76 ± 40.26 92.58 ± 6.94	519.42 ± 44.22 92.58 ± 7.63	510.76 ± 40.28 93.42 ± 5.20	516.21 ± 37.88 93.83 ± 5.97
线索有效	497.61 ± 35.19 96.50 ± 6.77	503.24 ± 43.28 95.50 ± 5.85	524.96 ± 50.30 96.25 ± 6.99	497.87 ± 44.26 90.75 ± 8.49
语义不一致
线索无效	524.81 ± 35.75 93.33 ± 6.28	521.99 ± 35.59 93.25 ± 6.81	510.06 ± 32.23 92.75 ± 7.24	520.28 ± 33.78 94.67 ± 6.45
线索有效	496.43 ± 34.03 96.50 ± 7.67	503.84 ± 44.52 95.00 ± 5.71	518.35 ± 37.04 94.75 ± 5.90	504.62 ± 36.53 94.75 ± 5.61

表1实验1中线索靶子语义一致性、线索有效性和线索位置各条件结合下的平均反应时和正确率(M ± SD)

线索靶子语义一致性	线索位置
线索靶子语义一致性	上	右	下	左
语义一致
线索无效	523.76 ± 40.26 92.58 ± 6.94	519.42 ± 44.22 92.58 ± 7.63	510.76 ± 40.28 93.42 ± 5.20	516.21 ± 37.88 93.83 ± 5.97
线索有效	497.61 ± 35.19 96.50 ± 6.77	503.24 ± 43.28 95.50 ± 5.85	524.96 ± 50.30 96.25 ± 6.99	497.87 ± 44.26 90.75 ± 8.49
语义不一致
线索无效	524.81 ± 35.75 93.33 ± 6.28	521.99 ± 35.59 93.25 ± 6.81	510.06 ± 32.23 92.75 ± 7.24	520.28 ± 33.78 94.67 ± 6.45
线索有效	496.43 ± 34.03 96.50 ± 7.67	503.84 ± 44.52 95.00 ± 5.71	518.35 ± 37.04 94.75 ± 5.90	504.62 ± 36.53 94.75 ± 5.61

图2实验1中线索有效性和线索位置的交互作用注：当线索出现在下方位置时, 线索无效时的反应快于线索有效时的反应; 线索出现在其他位置时, 线索无效时的反应不同程度地慢于线索有效时的反应。 *表示p < 0.05, **表示p < 0.01, ***表示p < 0.001, 下同

图3实验2流程图

图3实验2流程图

表2实验2中线索靶子语义一致性、线索有效性和线索位置各条件结合下的平均反应时和正确率(M ± SD)

线索靶子语义一致性	线索位置
线索靶子语义一致性	上方	右上	右下	下方	左下	左上
语义一致
线索无效	536.88 ± 42.35 97.95 ± 3.33	537.75 ± 44.63 96.59 ± 4.97	536.77 ± 45.04 95.45 ± 6.71	531.48 ± 36.46 96.82 ± 4.51	536.44 ± 40.01 98.86 ± 2.14	533.55 ± 42.43 97.05 ± 3.67
线索有效	519.41 ± 45.78 97.73 ± 7.36	519.72 ± 43.55 95.45 ± 12.53	545.26 ± 60.33 95.45 ± 9.87	545.51 ± 62.54 96.59 ± 11.69	550.27 ± 63.40 89.77 ± 14.76	536.36 ± 53.61 93.18 ± 11.40
语义不一致
线索无效	540.97 ± 36.93 96.36 ± 4.92	536.90 ± 42.92 96.36 ± 4.68	540.14 ± 42.30 96.59 ± 5.21	534.26 ± 32.20 96.82 ± 3.95	536.42 ± 44.58 97.50 ± 3.36	530.14 ± 35.28 97.05 ± 3.67
线索有效	532.07 ± 53.20 98.96 ± 5.33	533.43 ± 46.86 98.86 ± 5.33	553.02 ± 53.33 98.86 ± 5.33	568.89 ± 55.31 96.59 ± 8.78	563.85 ± 62.08 93.18 ± 13.76	535.43 ± 66.59 96.59 ± 8.78

表2实验2中线索靶子语义一致性、线索有效性和线索位置各条件结合下的平均反应时和正确率(M ± SD)

线索靶子语义一致性	线索位置
线索靶子语义一致性	上方	右上	右下	下方	左下	左上
语义一致
线索无效	536.88 ± 42.35 97.95 ± 3.33	537.75 ± 44.63 96.59 ± 4.97	536.77 ± 45.04 95.45 ± 6.71	531.48 ± 36.46 96.82 ± 4.51	536.44 ± 40.01 98.86 ± 2.14	533.55 ± 42.43 97.05 ± 3.67
线索有效	519.41 ± 45.78 97.73 ± 7.36	519.72 ± 43.55 95.45 ± 12.53	545.26 ± 60.33 95.45 ± 9.87	545.51 ± 62.54 96.59 ± 11.69	550.27 ± 63.40 89.77 ± 14.76	536.36 ± 53.61 93.18 ± 11.40
语义不一致
线索无效	540.97 ± 36.93 96.36 ± 4.92	536.90 ± 42.92 96.36 ± 4.68	540.14 ± 42.30 96.59 ± 5.21	534.26 ± 32.20 96.82 ± 3.95	536.42 ± 44.58 97.50 ± 3.36	530.14 ± 35.28 97.05 ± 3.67
线索有效	532.07 ± 53.20 98.96 ± 5.33	533.43 ± 46.86 98.86 ± 5.33	553.02 ± 53.33 98.86 ± 5.33	568.89 ± 55.31 96.59 ± 8.78	563.85 ± 62.08 93.18 ± 13.76	535.43 ± 66.59 96.59 ± 8.78

图4实验2中线索有效性和线索位置的交互作用注：当线索出现在下方和左下位置时, 线索无效时的反应快于线索有效时的反应。线索出现在其他位置时, 线索无效和线索有效时的反应无差异。

图5实验3流程图

图5实验3流程图

表3实验3中线索靶子语义一致性、线索有效性和线索位置各条件结合下的平均反应时和正确率(M ± SD)

线索靶子语义一致性	线索位置
线索靶子语义一致性	上方	右上	右下	下方	左下	左上
语义一致
线索无效	936.77 ± 93.65 92.50 ± 4.89	935.36 ± 77.04 91.96 ± 5.89	915.47 ± 75.92 93.48 ± 4.69	890.01 ± 88.04 92.17 ± 4.79	916.90 ± 101.56 93.04 ± 5.22	956.92 ± 95.82 94.13 ± 5.36
线索有效	811.39 ± 187.07 94.02 ± 8.32	855.84 ± 194.22 95.65 ± 8.09	1017.24 ± 195.81 92.93 ± 9.85	1057.90 ± 198.98 96.20 ± 5.88	958.87 ± 145.62 89.67 ± 12.30	779.27 ± 150.16 94.02 ± 9.88
语义不一致
线索无效	970.18 ± 85.43 92.17 ± 3.72	950.88 ± 89.25 91.41 ± 6.21	923.04 ± 82.25 91.41 ± 4.70	928.99 ± 97.65 91.09 ± 5.37	933.36 ± 83.62 91.41 ± 5.43	949.07 ± 79.12 91.20 ± 7.34
线索有效	865.73 ± 165.24 94.02 ± 9.13	861.82 ± 184.36 93.48 ± 9.13	1014.82 ± 182.12 91.85 ± 11.06	1065.98 ± 158.78 85.87 ± 16.12	981.85 ± 165.56 89.67 ± 11.71	777.12 ± 173.19 94.02 ± 9.13

表3实验3中线索靶子语义一致性、线索有效性和线索位置各条件结合下的平均反应时和正确率(M ± SD)

线索靶子语义一致性	线索位置
线索靶子语义一致性	上方	右上	右下	下方	左下	左上
语义一致
线索无效	936.77 ± 93.65 92.50 ± 4.89	935.36 ± 77.04 91.96 ± 5.89	915.47 ± 75.92 93.48 ± 4.69	890.01 ± 88.04 92.17 ± 4.79	916.90 ± 101.56 93.04 ± 5.22	956.92 ± 95.82 94.13 ± 5.36
线索有效	811.39 ± 187.07 94.02 ± 8.32	855.84 ± 194.22 95.65 ± 8.09	1017.24 ± 195.81 92.93 ± 9.85	1057.90 ± 198.98 96.20 ± 5.88	958.87 ± 145.62 89.67 ± 12.30	779.27 ± 150.16 94.02 ± 9.88
语义不一致
线索无效	970.18 ± 85.43 92.17 ± 3.72	950.88 ± 89.25 91.41 ± 6.21	923.04 ± 82.25 91.41 ± 4.70	928.99 ± 97.65 91.09 ± 5.37	933.36 ± 83.62 91.41 ± 5.43	949.07 ± 79.12 91.20 ± 7.34
线索有效	865.73 ± 165.24 94.02 ± 9.13	861.82 ± 184.36 93.48 ± 9.13	1014.82 ± 182.12 91.85 ± 11.06	1065.98 ± 158.78 85.87 ± 16.12	981.85 ± 165.56 89.67 ± 11.71	777.12 ± 173.19 94.02 ± 9.13

图6实验3中线索有效性和线索位置的交互作用注：当线索出现在右下和下方位置时, 线索无效时的反应快于线索有效时的反应; 当线索出现在上方、右上和左上位置时, 线索无效时的反应慢于线索有效时的反应; 当线索出现在左下位置时, 线索无效和线索有效时的反应无差异。

图7实验1~3中不同线索位置条件下的注意定向效应及趋势线(同一纵坐标效应已平均)

参考文献 49

[1]	Bao, Y., Lei, Q., Fang, Y., Tong, Y., Schill, K., P?ppel, E., & Strasburger, H. (2013). Inhibition of return in the visual field: The eccentricity effect is independent of cortical magnification. Experimental Psychology, 60(6), 425-431. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000215 URL
[2]	Bergerbest, D., Shilkrot, O., Joseph, M., & Salti, M. (2017). Right visual-field advantage in the attentional blink: Asymmetry in attentional gating across time and space. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 79(7), 1979-1992.
[3]	Binder, J. R., Conant, L. L., Humphries, C. J., Fernandino, L., Simons, S. B., Aguilar, M., & Desai, R. H. (2016). Toward a brain-based componential semantic representation. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 33(3-4), 130-174. doi: 10.1080/02643294.2016.1147426 URLpmid: 27310469
[4]	Burnham, B. R. (2007). Displaywide visual features associated with a search display’s appearance can mediate attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(3), 392-422. doi: 10.3758/bf03194082 URLpmid: 17874581
[5]	Carlei, C., Framorando, D., Burra, N., & Kerzel, D. (2017). Face processing is enhanced in the left and upper visual hemi-fields. Visual Cognition, 25(7-8), 749-761. doi: 10.1080/13506285.2017.1327466 URL
[6]	Chee, M. W. L., Weekes, B., Lee, K. M., Soon, C. S., Schreiber, A., Hoon, J. J., & Chee, M. (2000). Overlap and dissociation of semantic processing of Chinese characters, English words, and pictures: Evidence from fMRI. Neuroimage, 12(4), 392-403. doi: 10.1006/nimg.2000.0631 URLpmid: 10988033
[7]	Colegatef, R. L., Hoffman, J. E., & Eriksen, C. W. (1973). Selective encoding from multielement visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 14(2), 217-224.
[8]	Dampuré, J., Ros, C., Rouet, J.-F., & Vibert, N. (2014). Task-dependent sensitisation of perceptual and semantic processing during visual search for words. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 530-549.
[9]	Eriksen, C. W., & Murphy, T. D. (1987). Movement of attentional focus across the visual field: A critical look at the evidence. Perception & Psychophysics, 42(3), 299-305. doi: 10.3758/bf03203082 URLpmid: 3671056
[10]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146 URL
[11]	Folk, C. L., & Anderson, B. A. (2010). Target-uncertainty effects in attentional capture: Color-singleton set or multiple attentional control settings? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(3), 421-426. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.3.421 URLpmid: 20551369
[12]	Folk, C. L., & Remington, R. (1998). Selectivity in distraction by irrelevant featural singletons: Evidence for two forms of attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24(3), 847-858. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.24.3.847 URLpmid: 9627420
[13]	Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18(4), 1030-1044. URLpmid: 1431742
[14]	Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Wright, J. H. (1994). The structure of attentional control: Contingent attentional capture by apparent motion, abrupt onset, and color. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(2), 317-329. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.20.2.317 URLpmid: 8189195
[15]	Gibson, B. S., & Kelsey, E. M. (1998). Stimulus-driven attentional capture is contingent on attentional set for displaywide visual features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24(3), 699-706. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.24.3.699 URLpmid: 9627409
[16]	Goodhew, S. C., Kendall, W., Ferber, S., & Pratt, J. (2014). Setting semantics: Conceptual set can determine the physical properties that capture attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(6), 1577-1589.
[17]	Greene, D. J., Mooshagian, E., Kaplan, J. T., Zaidel, E., & Iacoboni, M. (2009). The neural correlates of social attention: Automatic orienting to social and nonsocial cues. Psychological Research, 73(4), 499-511. doi: 10.1007/s00426-009-0233-3 URL
[18]	Guo, Y. N., You, X. Q., & Li, Y. (2016). The role of stimulus type and semantic category-level attentional set in sustained inattentional blindness: Stimulus type and attentional set in inattentional blindness. Japanese Psychological Research, 58(4), 332-341. doi: 10.1111/jpr.12127 URL
[19]	He, S., Cavanagh, P., & Intriligator, J. (1997). Attentional resolution. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1(3), 115-121. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(97)89058-4 URLpmid: 21223875
[20]	Henderson, J. M., & Hayes, T. R. (2017). Meaning-based guidance of attention in scenes as revealed by meaning maps. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(10), 743-747. doi: 10.1038/s41562-017-0208-0 URLpmid: 31024101
[21]	Hollingworth, A., Maxcey-Richard, A. M., & Vecera, S. P. (2012). The spatial distribution of attention within and across objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 38(1), 135-151. doi: 10.1037/a0024463 URLpmid: 21728455
[22]	Huang, W. Y., Su, Y. L., Zhen, Y. F., & Zhe, Q. (2016). The role of top-down spatial attention in contingent attentional capture. Psychophysiology, 53(5), 650-662. doi: 10.1111/psyp.12615 URLpmid: 26879628
[23]	Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary vs. automatic control over the mind’s eye’s movement. In J.B. Long and A.D. Baddeley (Eds.) Attention and performance IX: (pp.187-203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[24]	Joseph, R. M., Fricker, Z., & Keehn, B. (2015). Activation of frontoparietal attention networks by non-predictive gaze and arrow cues. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(2), 294-301. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsu054 URLpmid: 24748545
[25]	Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(4), 138-147. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01452-2 URLpmid: 10740278
[26]	Liu, T., Heeger, D. J., & Carrasco, M. (2006). Neural correlates of the visual vertical meridian asymmetry. Journal of Vision, 6(11), 1294-1306. doi: 10.1167/6.11.12 URLpmid: 17209736
[27]	Lu, J. C., Tian, L. L., Zhang, J. F., Wang, J., Ye, C. X., & Liu, Q. (2017). Strategic inhibition of distractors with visual working memory contents after involuntary attention capture. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 16314. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-16305-5 URLpmid: 29176675
[28]	Maxfield, L. (1997). Attention and semantic priming: A review of prime task effects. Consciousness & Cognition, 6(2-3), 204-218. URLpmid: 9262409
[29]	Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90(2), 227-234. URLpmid: 5134329
[30]	Palanica, A., & Itier, R. J. (2015). Eye gaze and head orientation modulate the inhibition of return for faces. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 77(8), 2589-2600.
[31]	Palanica, A., & Itier, R. J. (2017). Asymmetry in gaze direction discrimination between the upper and lower visual fields. Perception, 46(8), 941-955. URLpmid: 28056652
[32]	Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.). Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 55-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[33]	Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 531-556). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[34]	Quek, G. L., & Finkbeiner, M. (2016). The upper-hemifield advantage for masked face processing: Not just an attentional bias. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 78(1), 52-68.
[35]	Sato, W., Kochiyama, T., Uono, S., & Yoshikawa, S. (2009). Commonalities in the neural mechanisms underlying automatic attentional shifts by gaze, gestures, and symbols. Neuroimage, 45(3), 984-992. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.12.052 URLpmid: 19167506
[36]	Schoeberl, T., Fuchs, I., Theeuwes, J., & Ansorge, U. (2015). Stimulus-driven attentional capture by subliminal onset cues. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 77(3), 737-748.
[37]	Seidl-Rathkopf, K. N., Turk-Browne, N. B., & Kastner, S. (2015). Automatic guidance of attention during real-world visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(6), 1881-1895.
[38]	Shen, W., Qu, Q. Q., & Li, X. S. (2016). Semantic information mediates visual attention during spoken word recognition in Chinese: Evidence from the printed-word version of the visual-world paradigm. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(5), 1267-1284.
[39]	Sun, S. Z., Shen, J., Shaw, M., Cant, J. S., & Ferber, S. (2015). Automatic capture of attention by conceptually generated working memory templates. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 77(6), 1841-1847.
[40]	Thomas, N. A., Castine, B. R., Loetscher, T., & Nicholls, M. E. R. (2015). Upper visual field distractors preferentially bias attention to the left. Cortex, 64, 179-193. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2014.10.018 URLpmid: 25437374
[41]	Wang, B. C., Cao, X. H., Theeuwes, J., Olivers, C. N. L., & Wang, Z. G. (2017). Separate capacities for storing different features in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(2), 226-236. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000295 URLpmid: 27399920
[42]	Wang, H. Y., Sui, J., & Zhang, M. (2016). The effect of cue-target relevance and search strategies on attentional capture: Evidence from meaning cues. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(7), 783-793.
	[ 王慧媛, 隋洁, 张明. (2016). 线索靶子关联和搜索策略对注意捕获的作用——来自意义线索的证据. 心理学报, 48(7), 783-793.]
[43]	Wang, H. Y., Sui, J., & Zhang, M. (2018). Attentional capture is contingent on attentional control setting for semantic meaning: Evidence from modified spatial cueing paradigm. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(10), 1071-1082.
	[ 王慧媛, 隋洁, 张明. (2018). 语义关联的注意捕获——来自线索化范式的证据. 心理学报, 50(10), 1071-1082.]
[44]	Wang, H. Y., Zhang, M., & Sui, J. (2014). The effect of cue-target relevance and search strategies on attentional capture. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(2), 185-195.
	[ 王慧媛, 张明, 隋洁. (2014). 线索靶子关联和搜索策略对注意捕获的作用. 心理学报, 46(2), 185-195.]
[45]	Wurm, L. H., Legge, G. E., Isenberg, L. M., & Luebker, A. (1993). Color improves object recognition in normal and low vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance, 19(4), 899-911. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.19.4.899 URLpmid: 8409865
[46]	Wyble, B., Folk, C., & Potter, M. C. (2013). Contingent attentional capture by conceptually relevant images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 861-871. doi: 10.1037/a0030517 URLpmid: 23163786
[47]	Yang, M., Liu, D. W., Cai, A. N., & Zhou, R. L. (2012). Attentional bias of spatial location in viewing scenes: Evidence from eye tracking research. Journal of Psychological Science, 35(2), 258-263.
	[ 杨萌, 刘丹玮, 蔡安妮, 周仁来. (2012). 自由观看实景图片时注意的空间偏向. 心理科学, 35(2), 258-263.]
[48]	Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 601-621. URLpmid: 6238122
[49]	Zhao, S., Li, C. L., Uono, S., Yoshimura, S., & Toichi, M. (2017). Human cortical activity evoked by contextual processing in attentional orienting. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 2962. URLpmid: 28592863