在 Stroop 范式下空间注意力与语义之间的关系。

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY Attention Perception & Psychophysics Pub Date : 2024-06-17 DOI:10.3758/s13414-024-02911-9
Derek Besner, Torin Young
{"title":"在 Stroop 范式下空间注意力与语义之间的关系。","authors":"Derek Besner,&nbsp;Torin Young","doi":"10.3758/s13414-024-02911-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A controversial issue in the literature on single word reading concerns whether semantic activation from a printed word can be stopped. Several reports have claimed that, even when attention is directed to a single letter in a word, <i>semantic</i> interference persists full blown in the context of variants of Stroop’s paradigm. Incidental word recognition is thus claimed to be unaffected by directed spatial attention and hence to be automatic by this criterion. In contrast, the literature examining the relation between intentional visual word recognition and spatial attention in tasks like lexical decision and reading aloud suggests that spatial attention is a necessary preliminary to lexical/semantic processing of a word. These opposing conclusions raise the question of whether there is a qualitative difference between incidental and intentional visual word recognition when spatial attention is considered. We first consider the methodology from Stroop experiments in which putatively narrowed spatial attention manipulations failed to prevent interference from semantics. We then report a new experiment that better promotes focused spatial attention. The results yield clear evidence that the effect of semantic activation can indeed be sidelined because one or more prior processes were in large measure stopped. We conclude that incidental word recognition is not automatic in the sense of occurring without any kind of attention.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55433,"journal":{"name":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the relationship between spatial attention and semantics in the context of a Stroop paradigm\",\"authors\":\"Derek Besner,&nbsp;Torin Young\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13414-024-02911-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>A controversial issue in the literature on single word reading concerns whether semantic activation from a printed word can be stopped. Several reports have claimed that, even when attention is directed to a single letter in a word, <i>semantic</i> interference persists full blown in the context of variants of Stroop’s paradigm. Incidental word recognition is thus claimed to be unaffected by directed spatial attention and hence to be automatic by this criterion. In contrast, the literature examining the relation between intentional visual word recognition and spatial attention in tasks like lexical decision and reading aloud suggests that spatial attention is a necessary preliminary to lexical/semantic processing of a word. These opposing conclusions raise the question of whether there is a qualitative difference between incidental and intentional visual word recognition when spatial attention is considered. We first consider the methodology from Stroop experiments in which putatively narrowed spatial attention manipulations failed to prevent interference from semantics. We then report a new experiment that better promotes focused spatial attention. The results yield clear evidence that the effect of semantic activation can indeed be sidelined because one or more prior processes were in large measure stopped. We conclude that incidental word recognition is not automatic in the sense of occurring without any kind of attention.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Attention Perception & Psychophysics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Attention Perception & Psychophysics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-024-02911-9\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-024-02911-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在有关单词阅读的文献中,有一个颇具争议的问题,即印刷单词的语义激活是否可以停止。一些报告称,即使注意力被引导到单词中的一个字母上,语义干扰也会在斯特罗普范式的变体中全面爆发。因此,偶然的单词识别被认为不受定向空间注意的影响,因此根据这一标准,偶然的单词识别是自动的。与此相反,研究词汇判断和朗读等任务中有意视觉词汇识别与空间注意之间关系的文献表明,空间注意是词汇/语义加工的必要前提。这些截然相反的结论提出了一个问题:在考虑空间注意力时,偶然视觉单词识别和有意视觉单词识别之间是否存在质的区别。我们首先考虑了来自 Stroop 实验的方法,在这些实验中,所谓的缩小空间注意操作未能阻止语义的干扰。然后,我们报告了一个能更好地促进集中空间注意力的新实验。实验结果清楚地表明,语义激活的效果确实可以被忽略,因为一个或多个先前过程在很大程度上被停止了。我们的结论是,偶然的单词识别并不是自动发生的,不需要任何形式的注意。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On the relationship between spatial attention and semantics in the context of a Stroop paradigm

A controversial issue in the literature on single word reading concerns whether semantic activation from a printed word can be stopped. Several reports have claimed that, even when attention is directed to a single letter in a word, semantic interference persists full blown in the context of variants of Stroop’s paradigm. Incidental word recognition is thus claimed to be unaffected by directed spatial attention and hence to be automatic by this criterion. In contrast, the literature examining the relation between intentional visual word recognition and spatial attention in tasks like lexical decision and reading aloud suggests that spatial attention is a necessary preliminary to lexical/semantic processing of a word. These opposing conclusions raise the question of whether there is a qualitative difference between incidental and intentional visual word recognition when spatial attention is considered. We first consider the methodology from Stroop experiments in which putatively narrowed spatial attention manipulations failed to prevent interference from semantics. We then report a new experiment that better promotes focused spatial attention. The results yield clear evidence that the effect of semantic activation can indeed be sidelined because one or more prior processes were in large measure stopped. We conclude that incidental word recognition is not automatic in the sense of occurring without any kind of attention.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
197
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics is an official journal of the Psychonomic Society. It spans all areas of research in sensory processes, perception, attention, and psychophysics. Most articles published are reports of experimental work; the journal also presents theoretical, integrative, and evaluative reviews. Commentary on issues of importance to researchers appears in a special section of the journal. Founded in 1966 as Perception & Psychophysics, the journal assumed its present name in 2009.
期刊最新文献
Viewed touch influences tactile detection by altering decision criterion. Editorial for Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. Inhibition of return in a 3D scene depends on the direction of depth switch between cue and target. Crossmodal correspondence of elevation/pitch and size/pitch is driven by real-world features. Effect of attention on ensemble perception: Comparison between exogenous attention, endogenous attention, and depth.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1