CAJ | 학술논문

背景:注意瞬脱强调了快速序列视觉呈现字符流中紧跟在靶之后的干扰物和位于靶之前的引导干扰物对于注意瞬脱产生的重要性,但位于第2靶(T2)之后的后继(除了紧跟的那个)干扰物作用的报道并不多见.目的:验证快速序列视觉呈现中T2之后的后继干扰物对注意瞬脱的作用.设计:随机对照观察.单位:中南民族大学认知科学实验室.对象:选择25名中南民族大学本科学生,年龄18～21岁,平均19岁.所有学生均无神经精神性疾病,视力或矫正视力正常,并对检测项目知情同意.将受试对象分为实验组(n=14)及对照组(n=11),两组年龄、性别构成差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).方法:实验于2007-01/04在中南民族大学认知科学实验室完成.①实验干预:刺激为由数字干扰物和2个字母靶组成的快速序列视觉呈现字符流.②实验分组:实验组参与去除条件实验,对照组参与保留条件实验.③结果分析:采用单因素方差分析评估同组数据的差异显著性,t检验用于比较两组之间的数据.主要观察指标:不同条件下两组受试对象对第1靶(T1)和第2靶(T2)的正确识别率.结果:纳入受试对象25名均进入结果分析.①保留条件下正确识别率:第1靶在不同间隔条件下的正确识别率为94.6%.对照组T2正确识别率在间隔1时高(92.7%),在间隔2时明显下降(79.8%),随后随着间隔增加而持续提高,间隔效应显著[F(4,40)=10.98,P＜0.01].②去除条件下正确识别率:第1靶在不同间隔条件下的正确识别率为96.2%.实验组T2报告正确率在间隔1时高(94.4%),在间隔2时降低(84.4%),随后在间隔3时提高(91.1%),然而在间隔5和间隔7时又明显下降(分别为44.9和43.9%).间隔效应显著[F(4,52)=224.0,P＜0.01].③两种条件下结果的比较:与保留条件下的T2正确率相比,去除条件下的T2正确率在间隔5和间隔7时显著降低[t(23)=34 44,42.56,P＜0.01];但在间隔1,2,3时差异无显著性(P＞0.05).结论:T2之后的后继干扰物的缺失通过使被试的注意状态引入偏差而导致长间隔时的T2正确率下降到不同寻常的低水平. 揹景:註意瞬脫彊調瞭快速序列視覺呈現字符流中緊跟在靶之後的榦擾物和位于靶之前的引導榦擾物對于註意瞬脫產生的重要性,但位于第2靶(T2)之後的後繼(除瞭緊跟的那箇)榦擾物作用的報道併不多見.目的:驗證快速序列視覺呈現中T2之後的後繼榦擾物對註意瞬脫的作用.設計:隨機對照觀察.單位:中南民族大學認知科學實驗室.對象:選擇25名中南民族大學本科學生,年齡18～21歲,平均19歲.所有學生均無神經精神性疾病,視力或矯正視力正常,併對檢測項目知情同意.將受試對象分為實驗組(n=14)及對照組(n=11),兩組年齡、性彆構成差異無統計學意義(P＞0.05).方法:實驗于2007-01/04在中南民族大學認知科學實驗室完成.①實驗榦預:刺激為由數字榦擾物和2箇字母靶組成的快速序列視覺呈現字符流.②實驗分組:實驗組參與去除條件實驗,對照組參與保留條件實驗.③結果分析:採用單因素方差分析評估同組數據的差異顯著性,t檢驗用于比較兩組之間的數據.主要觀察指標:不同條件下兩組受試對象對第1靶(T1)和第2靶(T2)的正確識彆率.結果:納入受試對象25名均進入結果分析.①保留條件下正確識彆率:第1靶在不同間隔條件下的正確識彆率為94.6%.對照組T2正確識彆率在間隔1時高(92.7%),在間隔2時明顯下降(79.8%),隨後隨著間隔增加而持續提高,間隔效應顯著[F(4,40)=10.98,P＜0.01].②去除條件下正確識彆率:第1靶在不同間隔條件下的正確識彆率為96.2%.實驗組T2報告正確率在間隔1時高(94.4%),在間隔2時降低(84.4%),隨後在間隔3時提高(91.1%),然而在間隔5和間隔7時又明顯下降(分彆為44.9和43.9%).間隔效應顯著[F(4,52)=224.0,P＜0.01].③兩種條件下結果的比較:與保留條件下的T2正確率相比,去除條件下的T2正確率在間隔5和間隔7時顯著降低[t(23)=34 44,42.56,P＜0.01];但在間隔1,2,3時差異無顯著性(P＞0.05).結論:T2之後的後繼榦擾物的缺失通過使被試的註意狀態引入偏差而導緻長間隔時的T2正確率下降到不同尋常的低水平.
배경:주의순탈강조료쾌속서렬시각정현자부류중긴근재파지후적간우물화위우파지전적인도간우물대우주의순탈산생적중요성,단위우제2파(T2)지후적후계(제료긴근적나개)간우물작용적보도병불다견.목적:험증쾌속서렬시각정현중T2지후적후계간우물대주의순탈적작용.설계:수궤대조관찰.단위:중남민족대학인지과학실험실.대상:선택25명중남민족대학본과학생,년령18～21세,평균19세.소유학생균무신경정신성질병,시력혹교정시력정상,병대검측항목지정동의.장수시대상분위실험조(n=14)급대조조(n=11),량조년령、성별구성차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05).방법:실험우2007-01/04재중남민족대학인지과학실험실완성.①실험간예:자격위유수자간우물화2개자모파조성적쾌속서렬시각정현자부류.②실험분조:실험조삼여거제조건실험,대조조삼여보류조건실험.③결과분석:채용단인소방차분석평고동조수거적차이현저성,t검험용우비교량조지간적수거.주요관찰지표:불동조건하량조수시대상대제1파(T1)화제2파(T2)적정학식별솔.결과:납입수시대상25명균진입결과분석.①보류조건하정학식별솔:제1파재불동간격조건하적정학식별솔위94.6%.대조조T2정학식별솔재간격1시고(92.7%),재간격2시명현하강(79.8%),수후수착간격증가이지속제고,간격효응현저[F(4,40)=10.98,P＜0.01].②거제조건하정학식별솔:제1파재불동간격조건하적정학식별솔위96.2%.실험조T2보고정학솔재간격1시고(94.4%),재간격2시강저(84.4%),수후재간격3시제고(91.1%),연이재간격5화간격7시우명현하강(분별위44.9화43.9%).간격효응현저[F(4,52)=224.0,P＜0.01].③량충조건하결과적비교:여보류조건하적T2정학솔상비,거제조건하적T2정학솔재간격5화간격7시현저강저[t(23)=34 44,42.56,P＜0.01];단재간격1,2,3시차이무현저성(P＞0.05).결론:T2지후적후계간우물적결실통과사피시적주의상태인입편차이도치장간격시적T2정학솔하강도불동심상적저수평.
BACKGROUND:Researches on attentional blink (AB) emphasized the importance of the distractors directly following targets and that of the leading distractors in rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) streams in the production of the AB,but little has been mentioned about the subsequent distractors after the second target (except the one in direct succession to it).OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of subsequent distractors in RSVP stream on AB after the second target (T2).DESIGN: A randomized and controlled study.SETTING: Laboratory of Cognitive Science, South-central University for Nationalities.PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five undergraduates aging 18-21 years with the mean age of 19 years were selected from South-central University for Nationalities. All undergraduates participated in the experiment did not have nervous mental diseases but had normal sight or corrected visual acuity; meanwhile, all of them provided the confirmed consent. The subjects were divided into experimental group (n =14) and control group (n =11). There were no significant differences between the two groups in age and sex (P ＞ 0.05).METHODS: The experiment was carried out in the Laboratory of Cognitive Science, South-central University for Nationalities from January to April 2007. ① Experimental intervention: The stimuli were RSVP streams consisted of digit distractors and two letter targets (T1 and T2). ② Experimental grouping: The experimental group participated in the omitted condition and the control group participated in the preserved condition. ③ Experimental analysis: One-way ANOVA was used to evaluate the data for statistically significant difference in the same group, and t test was used to compare data between two groups.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Report accuracy of T1 and T2.RESULTS: A total of 25 subjects were involved in the final analysis. ① Report accuracy in the preserved condition:Correct identification of the first target, averaged across all lags, was 94.6%. The percentages of correct identification of the second target as a function of lag was high at Lag1 (92.7%), dropped dramatically at Lag2 (79.8%), then kept improving with increase of lag, revealing a significant effect of lag [F(4,40) = 10.98, P＜ 0.01]. ② Report accuracy in the omitted condition: Correct identification of the first target T1, averaged across all lags, was 96.2%. The percentages of correct identification of the second target as a function of lag, T2 report was high at Lag1 (94.4%), decreased at Lag2(84.4%), then improved at Lag3 (91.1%), but dropped remarkably again at Lag5 and Lag7 (44.9 vs. 43.9%), revealing a significant effect of lag [F (4,52) = 224.0, P ＜ 0.01]. ③ Comparison of the results in two conditions: T2 accuracy in the omitted condition was significantly lower than that in the preserved condition at Lag5 [t (23)=34.44, P ＜ 0.01], and Lag7 [t (23)=42.56, P ＜ 0.01], but did not differ from each other at Lag1 [t (23)=0.65, P ＞ 0.05], at Lag2 [t (23)=1.04, P ＞0.05], and at Lag3 [t (23)=0.64, P ＞ 0.05].CONCLUSION: The absence of subsequent distractors after T2 can introduce a bias on the attentional status of subjects to bring the T2 accuracy down to unusual low level at long lags.