Please wait a minute...
心理学报
  论文 本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
跨通道情境下双任务范式与计时中断范式中的效应比较
尹华站;李丹;袁祥勇;黄希庭
(1重庆师范大学教育科学学院, 重庆 401331) (2西南大学心理学部, 重庆 400715)
Contrasting Effects of Dual-task Paradigm and of Timing Interruption Paradigm in Interval Timing of the Context of Culti-modal Processing
YIN Huazhan;LI Dan;YUAN Xiangyong;HUANG Xiting
(1 School of Education Science, Chongqing Normal University, Chongqing 401331, China) (2 School of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China)
全文: PDF(544 KB)  
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 为了探讨跨通道情境下同一种刺激序列中双任务范式与计时中断范式中位置效应和间断效应的异同, 研究设计了实验1和实验2。实验1以2500 ms和4500 ms为目标时距, 采用相同的刺激序列(视觉呈现时距信号, 听觉呈现干扰信号或中断信号), 要求3组被试分别在控制、干扰及中断条件下完成相应任务, 结果发现不管2500 ms或4500 ms时, 中断条件较干扰条件和控制条件的间断效应更明显; 同时发现在2500 ms时, 不管控制、干扰还是中断条件下均发现了位置效应, 而4500 ms时仅在中断条件下出现了位置效应, 这可能由于实验1的控制及干扰任务中的4500 ms时的“晚”位置的时间确定性较高, 以致掩盖了位置效应。为了降低“晚”位置出现的确定性, 更好地对比两种范式中的效应, 实验2将目标时距设置为1500 ms和2500 ms, 结果发现在1500 ms或2500 ms时, 不管控制、干扰还是中断条件下均发现了位置效应, 且中断条件较干扰条件和控制条件下间断效应更明显。上述结果意味着跨通道情境下同一种刺激序列中双任务范式与计时中断范式中位置效应是否相同局限在一定时间范畴; 计时中断范式中的中断效应对计时的消弱较双任务范式干扰效应更显著。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
尹华站
李丹
袁祥勇
黄希庭
关键词 双任务范式计时中断范式位置效应间断效应标量期望模型    
Abstract:Distribution of attention in time information processing is one of the hot areas of research science, and the dual-task paradigm is one of the most common ways to study distribution of attention. It requires an individual to perform two tasks simultaneously, the less the attention allocated to a temporal interval, the shorter it is judged(Brown, 1997). The attention sharing effect is discussed within the framework of the scalar expectancy model of timing. In such paradigm the parallel processing itself may interfere with time perception and lead to unexpected deviations. In order to avoid such interference, the timing interruption paradigm would be a better solution as it uses a blank interruption instead. The researchers consistently found a similar position and interruption effect in both paradigms (Casini & Macar, 1997; Cortin, & Remblai,, 2006; Remblai, & Cortin,, 2003). Furthermore, the results showed both the discontinuity and interference of current information processing were belong to interruption effect, but to varying extents (Cortin, & Masse, 2000; Macar, 2002). However, though the position and interruption effect were similar in the two paradigms, they have not been explored in a same stimuli series. As we know, information exchange with the outside world is not dependent on single sensory channel, but rather the interaction of cross-modal information processing. It would be valuable to explore the position and interruption effect in the context ofcross-modal processing. It would not only help to uncover the cognitive mechanism of time processing, but also have important practical values as it is more similar with daily life. Therefore, the present study was designed to investigate the position and interruption effect in the two paradigms in the cross-modal conditions. To this end, the study consisted of two experiments. In experiment 1, 2500 ms and 4500 ms were set for the target time intervals, using the same stimulus sequence (visual presentation, with aural interruption), participants were allocated to control, break and interference condition respectively. In experiment 2,the target intervals were set to 1500 ms and 2500 ms. Results of experiment 1 showed that the interruption effect is more significant in break condition regardless of target time intervals. Furthermore, under the 2500ms, position effect were found in all three conditions, whereas under the 4500ms condition, the position effect only existed in the break condition. Experiment 2 found that there was position effect consistently, regardless of the interpolation conditions or target time intervals. Besides, the interrupt effect was more significant in the break condition. Such results imply that whether the position effect is the same in the two paradigms depends on the length ofthe target intervals to some extent. Besides, in the timing interruption paradigm, the break effect on timing is more significant than the interference effect in dual-task paradigm.
Key wordsdual-task paradigm    timing interruption paradigm    position effect    interruption effect    scalar expectancy model of timing
收稿日期: 2012-11-28      出版日期: 2013-08-25
基金资助:

受教育部人文社科青年基金(12YJC190035); 第53批中国博士后面上项目(2013M530759); 重庆市教委科技项目(KJ120618,KJ130365); 西南大学211工程项目(NSKD11001)资助。

通讯作者: 黄希庭   
引用本文:   
尹华站;李丹;袁祥勇;黄希庭. 跨通道情境下双任务范式与计时中断范式中的效应比较[J]. 心理学报, 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.00860.
YIN Huazhan;LI Dan;YUAN Xiangyong;HUANG Xiting. Contrasting Effects of Dual-task Paradigm and of Timing Interruption Paradigm in Interval Timing of the Context of Culti-modal Processing. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2013, 45(8): 860-873.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.00860      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2013/V45/I8/860
[1] 孟红霞;白学军;臧传丽;闫国利. 并列和偏正结构双字合成词的注视位置效应[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(1): 36-49.
[2] 白学军,孟红霞,王敬欣,田静,臧传丽,闫国利. 阅读障碍儿童与其年龄和能力匹配儿童阅读空格文本的注视位置效应[J]. , 2011, 43(08): 851-862.
[3] 罗艳琳,王鹏,李秀军,石雅琪,陈墨,王培培,胡斯秀,罗跃嘉. 汉字认知过程中整字对部件的影响[J]. , 2010, 42(06): 683-694.
[4] 张明,张阳,付佳. 工作记忆对动态范式中基于客体的返回抑制的影响[J]. , 2007, 39(01): 35-42.
[5] 周荣刚,张侃. 自我参照和环境参照整合过程中的主方位判断[J]. , 2005, 37(03): 298-307.
[6] 牟炜民,张侃,郭素梅. 空间相对位置效应的时间特征[J]. , 2001, 33(01): 24-29.
[7] 吴艳红,朱滢. 项目在不同间隔时间呈现过程中的系列位置效应[J]. , 1999, 31(02): 162-168.
[8] 张力,朱滢. 关联性记忆错觉的产生与保持[J]. , 1998, 30(04): 374-380.
[9] 吴艳红,朱滢. 项目等距呈现过程中的系列位置效应[J]. , 1998, 30(04): 366-373.
[10] 王乃怡. 听力正常人与聋人长时记忆的比较研究[J]. , 1994, 26(04): 401-409.
[11] 王乃怡. 听力正常人与聋人短时记忆的比较研究[J]. , 1993, 25(01): 11-18.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn