基于客体工作记忆的注意捕获是否是自动化的?认知负载的影响:ERP证据
详细信息 查看官网全文
- 英文论文题名：Do the Contents of Object Working Memory Automatically Capture Attention?Electrophysiological Evidence for the Effect of Cognitive Load
- 论文作者：胡艳梅 ; 张明
- 英文论文作者：Hu Yanmei ; Zhang ming ; Department of Psychology ; Northeast Normal University ; Department of Psychology ; Soochow University
- 年：2015
- 作者机构：东北师范大学心理学院;苏州大学心理学院;
- 论文关键词：客体工作记忆 ; 注意捕获 ; 自动化 ; N2pc
- 英文论文关键词：Object Working Memory ; Attention Capture ; Automatically ; N2pc
- 会议召开时间：2015-10-16
- 会议录名称：第十八届全国心理学学术会议摘要集——心理学与社会发展
- 英文会议录名称：Proceedings of the 18th National Academic Congress of Psychology
- 语种：中文
- 分类号：B842.3
- 学会代码：ZGXG
- 会议名称：第十八届全国心理学学术会议
- 会议地点：中国天津
- 主办单位：中国心理学会
- 学会名称：中国心理学会
- 页数：2
- 文件大小：742k
- 原文格式：D
- 会议级别：全国
摘要
偏向竞争模型假设工作记忆内容即是注意内容,会自动捕获注意。大量研究也发现,无论客体工作记忆内容是否与当前任务相关,与之匹配的刺激总能捕获注意,即基于记忆的注意捕获效应。该效应证实了客体工作记忆内容会被当作注意模板,保持在注意焦点(focus of attention)中。但还不足以回答:客体工作记忆内容能否自动进入注意焦点,即客体工作记忆内容会否自动成为注意内容?本研究采用ERP技术,操纵认知负载,考察基于客体工作记忆的注意捕获效应的自动化程度。如果客体工作记忆内容可以自动进入注意焦点,那么该效应将不受认知负载的影响;反之,随着认知负载的增加该效应会减小。实验要求被试在记忆一个颜色的同时完成一项视觉搜索任务。搜索任务包括一个目标和一个分心物。匹配条件下,分心物颜色与记忆颜色相同;控制条件下,目标与分心物颜色均与记忆颜色不同。被试在完成上述主任务的同时还将进行一项次任务。次任务包括减三负运算和发音抑制任务两种,分别对应于高低负载条件。虽然行为结果表明,高低负载条件下记忆匹配刺激均没有捕获注意——低负载条件下匹配试次搜索反应时快于控制试次;高负载条件下匹配试次与控制试次搜索反应时无差异。但ERP结果却发现:低负载条件下记忆匹配刺激首先诱发了N2pc成分(刺激出现后200-300ms左右),而后诱发了与抑制过程相关的差异波成分(刺激出现后300ms以后);即记忆匹配刺激先捕获了注意,后受到了抑制。高负载条件下,记忆匹配刺激既没有诱发N2pc成分,也没有诱发与抑制过程相关的差异波。即认知控制资源缺失时,基于记忆的注意捕获效应消失了——高负载条件下,次任务加工消耗了大量原本用于主任务加工的认知控制资源。本研究结果表明,客体工作记忆内容可以进入注意焦点,从而捕获注意。但该过程并非自动化加工,需要消耗认知控制资源。即客体工作记忆内容与注意内容的一致性是认知控制的结果;工作记忆系统与注意系统既互相关联又互相独立。
According to the Bias Competition Model, the contents of working memory are consistent with the contents of attention and would automatically capture attention. Many studies demonstrated the items matching the contents of working memory would capture attention(i.e. memory-based attention capture) regardless of whether the working memory contents were relevant to the task goals. Such findings suggested that the contents of object working memory can be the attention template and be hold in the focus of attention. However, whether the object working memory can be automatically hold in the focus of attention is still an unsolved question. In other words, whether the contents of working memory can automatically be the contents of attention? The present study employed ERP technology to investigate to what extend the memory-based attention capture effect can be an automatic process. If the contents of working memory can be automatically hold in the focus of attention, then the memory-based attention capture effect would not be affected by the changes of cognitive load. Otherwise, the memory-based attention capture effect would reduce with the increasing cognitive load. Participants were required to conduct a visual search task during the retention of a memory item while at the same time conducting a concurrent secondary task. The search task included one target and one distractor. One of the key operations was: whether or not the search distracter matched the memory item. Such memory-matching item was presented in matching trials and absented in control trials. The cognitive load was operated by conducting different secondary tasks. Participants had to additionally conduct either a backward counting task in steps of 3(high load) or an articulatory suppression task(low load) during each trial. Behavioral results showed RTs in the matching trials were shorter than RTs in the control trials with low concurrent load but did not differ from RTs in the control trials with high concurrent load. Such results suggested that the memory-matching items did not capture attention. However, ERP results showed the memory-matching items elicited both the N2pc components and the positive difference waves after N2pc in the low load condition. The former related to the attention capture effect, the later related to an inhibitory effect after attention capture. Neither the N2pc components nor the positive difference waves were found in the high load condition. The absence of the memory-based attention capture effect was caused by the lack of cognitive resource, for the high load secondary task occupied massive cognitive resource. The present findings suggested the contents of object working memory are not necessarily and automatically hold in the focus of attention. The consistence between the contents of working memory and attention should be attributed to the effects of cognitive control, suggesting the working memory and attention are two relevant and independent systems.
According to the Bias Competition Model, the contents of working memory are consistent with the contents of attention and would automatically capture attention. Many studies demonstrated the items matching the contents of working memory would capture attention(i.e. memory-based attention capture) regardless of whether the working memory contents were relevant to the task goals. Such findings suggested that the contents of object working memory can be the attention template and be hold in the focus of attention. However, whether the object working memory can be automatically hold in the focus of attention is still an unsolved question. In other words, whether the contents of working memory can automatically be the contents of attention? The present study employed ERP technology to investigate to what extend the memory-based attention capture effect can be an automatic process. If the contents of working memory can be automatically hold in the focus of attention, then the memory-based attention capture effect would not be affected by the changes of cognitive load. Otherwise, the memory-based attention capture effect would reduce with the increasing cognitive load. Participants were required to conduct a visual search task during the retention of a memory item while at the same time conducting a concurrent secondary task. The search task included one target and one distractor. One of the key operations was: whether or not the search distracter matched the memory item. Such memory-matching item was presented in matching trials and absented in control trials. The cognitive load was operated by conducting different secondary tasks. Participants had to additionally conduct either a backward counting task in steps of 3(high load) or an articulatory suppression task(low load) during each trial. Behavioral results showed RTs in the matching trials were shorter than RTs in the control trials with low concurrent load but did not differ from RTs in the control trials with high concurrent load. Such results suggested that the memory-matching items did not capture attention. However, ERP results showed the memory-matching items elicited both the N2pc components and the positive difference waves after N2pc in the low load condition. The former related to the attention capture effect, the later related to an inhibitory effect after attention capture. Neither the N2pc components nor the positive difference waves were found in the high load condition. The absence of the memory-based attention capture effect was caused by the lack of cognitive resource, for the high load secondary task occupied massive cognitive resource. The present findings suggested the contents of object working memory are not necessarily and automatically hold in the focus of attention. The consistence between the contents of working memory and attention should be attributed to the effects of cognitive control, suggesting the working memory and attention are two relevant and independent systems.
引文