效价和意义是如何相互作用的?语义控制的贡献

IF 2 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY Journal of Neuropsychology Pub Date : 2023-04-03 DOI:10.1111/jnp.12312
Nicholas E. Souter, Ariyana Reddy, Jake Walker, Julián Marino Dávolos, Elizabeth Jefferies
{"title":"效价和意义是如何相互作用的?语义控制的贡献","authors":"Nicholas E. Souter,&nbsp;Ariyana Reddy,&nbsp;Jake Walker,&nbsp;Julián Marino Dávolos,&nbsp;Elizabeth Jefferies","doi":"10.1111/jnp.12312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The hub-and-spoke model of semantic cognition proposes that conceptual representations in a heteromodal ‘hub’ interact with and emerge from modality-specific features or ‘spokes’, including valence (whether a concept is positive or negative), along with visual and auditory features. As a result, valence congruency might facilitate our ability to link words conceptually. Semantic relatedness may similarly affect explicit judgements about valence. Moreover, conflict between meaning and valence may recruit semantic control processes. Here we tested these predictions using two-alternative forced-choice tasks, in which participants matched a probe word to one of two possible target words, based on either global meaning or valence. Experiment 1 examined timed responses in healthy young adults, while Experiment 2 examined decision accuracy in semantic aphasia patients with impaired controlled semantic retrieval following left hemisphere stroke. Across both experiments, semantically related targets facilitated valence matching, while related distractors impaired performance. Valence congruency was also found to facilitate semantic decision-making. People with semantic aphasia showed impaired valence matching and had particular difficulty when semantically related distractors were presented, suggesting that the selective retrieval of valence information relies on semantic control processes. Taken together, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that automatic access to the global meaning of written words affects the processing of valence, and that the valence of words is also retrieved even when this feature is task-irrelevant, affecting the efficiency of global semantic judgements.</p>","PeriodicalId":197,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neuropsychology","volume":"17 3","pages":"521-539"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jnp.12312","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do valence and meaning interact? The contribution of semantic control\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas E. Souter,&nbsp;Ariyana Reddy,&nbsp;Jake Walker,&nbsp;Julián Marino Dávolos,&nbsp;Elizabeth Jefferies\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jnp.12312\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The hub-and-spoke model of semantic cognition proposes that conceptual representations in a heteromodal ‘hub’ interact with and emerge from modality-specific features or ‘spokes’, including valence (whether a concept is positive or negative), along with visual and auditory features. As a result, valence congruency might facilitate our ability to link words conceptually. Semantic relatedness may similarly affect explicit judgements about valence. Moreover, conflict between meaning and valence may recruit semantic control processes. Here we tested these predictions using two-alternative forced-choice tasks, in which participants matched a probe word to one of two possible target words, based on either global meaning or valence. Experiment 1 examined timed responses in healthy young adults, while Experiment 2 examined decision accuracy in semantic aphasia patients with impaired controlled semantic retrieval following left hemisphere stroke. Across both experiments, semantically related targets facilitated valence matching, while related distractors impaired performance. Valence congruency was also found to facilitate semantic decision-making. People with semantic aphasia showed impaired valence matching and had particular difficulty when semantically related distractors were presented, suggesting that the selective retrieval of valence information relies on semantic control processes. Taken together, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that automatic access to the global meaning of written words affects the processing of valence, and that the valence of words is also retrieved even when this feature is task-irrelevant, affecting the efficiency of global semantic judgements.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":197,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Neuropsychology\",\"volume\":\"17 3\",\"pages\":\"521-539\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jnp.12312\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jnp.12312\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jnp.12312","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

语义认知的轮辐模型提出,异模态“轮辐”中的概念表征与特定于模态的特征或“轮辐”相互作用,并从中产生,包括效价(无论概念是积极的还是消极的),以及视觉和听觉特征。因此,效价一致性可能会促进我们在概念上连接单词的能力。语义关联可能同样影响对价的外显判断。此外,意义与效价之间的冲突可能会引发语义控制过程。在这里,我们使用两种选择的强迫选择任务来测试这些预测,在这个任务中,参与者将一个探测词与两个可能的目标词中的一个相匹配,基于整体意义或效价。实验1检验了健康青年的时间反应,实验2检验了左脑卒中后控制语义检索受损的语义失语症患者的决策准确性。在两个实验中,语义相关的目标促进了效价匹配,而相关的干扰则损害了表现。效价一致性也有助于语义决策。语意性失语症患者在出现语义相关干扰物时表现出价匹配障碍,表明语意性失语症患者的价信息选择性检索依赖于语义控制过程。综上所述,研究结果与假设一致,即自动获取书面单词的整体意义会影响效价的处理,并且即使该特征与任务无关,也会检索词的效价,从而影响整体语义判断的效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
How do valence and meaning interact? The contribution of semantic control

The hub-and-spoke model of semantic cognition proposes that conceptual representations in a heteromodal ‘hub’ interact with and emerge from modality-specific features or ‘spokes’, including valence (whether a concept is positive or negative), along with visual and auditory features. As a result, valence congruency might facilitate our ability to link words conceptually. Semantic relatedness may similarly affect explicit judgements about valence. Moreover, conflict between meaning and valence may recruit semantic control processes. Here we tested these predictions using two-alternative forced-choice tasks, in which participants matched a probe word to one of two possible target words, based on either global meaning or valence. Experiment 1 examined timed responses in healthy young adults, while Experiment 2 examined decision accuracy in semantic aphasia patients with impaired controlled semantic retrieval following left hemisphere stroke. Across both experiments, semantically related targets facilitated valence matching, while related distractors impaired performance. Valence congruency was also found to facilitate semantic decision-making. People with semantic aphasia showed impaired valence matching and had particular difficulty when semantically related distractors were presented, suggesting that the selective retrieval of valence information relies on semantic control processes. Taken together, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that automatic access to the global meaning of written words affects the processing of valence, and that the valence of words is also retrieved even when this feature is task-irrelevant, affecting the efficiency of global semantic judgements.

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
Journal of Neuropsychology
Journal of Neuropsychology 医学-心理学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
34
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neuropsychology publishes original contributions to scientific knowledge in neuropsychology including: • clinical and research studies with neurological, psychiatric and psychological patient populations in all age groups • behavioural or pharmacological treatment regimes • cognitive experimentation and neuroimaging • multidisciplinary approach embracing areas such as developmental psychology, neurology, psychiatry, physiology, endocrinology, pharmacology and imaging science The following types of paper are invited: • papers reporting original empirical investigations • theoretical papers; provided that these are sufficiently related to empirical data • review articles, which need not be exhaustive, but which should give an interpretation of the state of research in a given field and, where appropriate, identify its clinical implications • brief reports and comments • case reports • fast-track papers (included in the issue following acceptation) reaction and rebuttals (short reactions to publications in JNP followed by an invited rebuttal of the original authors) • special issues.
期刊最新文献
Non-optimal cognitive offloading in schizophrenia in a prospective memory task: Influence of both metacognitive beliefs and cognitive effort avoidance. Alzheimer's disease-Biomarkers, clinical evaluation or both? Resolving the problem of surface dyslexia in Italian through inflection of irregular verbs. Reducing confusion surrounding expert conceptions of Alzheimer's and dementia: A practical analysis. Translation and validation of the abbreviated Prefrontal Symptoms Inventory (PSI-20): A tool for assessing prefrontal symptoms in English-speaking populations.
×
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