Please wait a minute...
心理学报  2017, Vol. 49 Issue (9): 1158-1171    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.01158
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
 部分线索对记忆提取的影响:认知抑制能力的作用
 刘湍丽1;  白学军2;
 (1信阳师范学院教育科学学院, 河南 信阳 464000) (2教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地天津师范大学心理与行为研究院, 天津 300074)
 The effect of part-list cues on memory retrieval: The role of inhibition ability
 LIU Tuanli1; BAI Xuejun2
 (1 School of Education Science, Xinyang Normal University, Xinyang 464000, China) (2 Key Research Base of Humanities and Social Sciences of Ministry of Education, Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300074, China)
全文: PDF(556 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要  在回忆时, 以刚刚学过的部分项目作为提取线索, 被试的回忆成绩反而比没有任何线索时的回忆成绩差, 这一现象被称为部分线索效应。该效应通常被认为是抑制执行控制过程对非线索项目记忆表征强度抑制的结果。本研究以Stroop效应量(实验1)和工作记忆容量(实验2)为指标, 从个体差异角度考察了认知抑制能力对部分线索效应的影响。结果发现, Stroop效应量与部分线索效应各指标呈显著负相关, Stroop效应量越小, 部分线索效应各指标的值越大; 工作记忆容量与部分线索效应各指标呈显著正相关, 高工作记忆容量个体的部分线索效应各指标的值也更大。结果表明, 认知抑制能力越强, 部分线索对回忆的破坏作用越大, 研究结果支持部分线索效应的提取抑制假说。
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
刘湍丽
白学军
关键词  部分线索效应 工作记忆容量 Stroop任务 认知抑制能力 个体差异    
Abstract: When people are asked to recall items from a previously studied list and are given a subset of the items on that list as retrieval cues, they often do more poorly at recalling the remaining items on the list than do people asked to recall the items in the absence of such retrieval cues. Such part-list cueing effect has often been attributed to inhibitory executive-control processes that supposedly suppress the non-cue items’ memory representation. According to this account, part-list cueing effect arises as an ‘aftereffect’ of executive-control processes during the presentation of part-list cues. The presence of part-list cues at testing leads to an early covert retrieval of the cue items, and this covert retrieval is assumed to trigger inhibitory processes on the non-cue items, affecting the representation of the non-cues itself and thus lowering their recovery chances. The core functions of executive-control processes include inhibition, working memory, and cognitive flexibility. The aim of current study was to further investigate the relationship between individual’s inhibitory executive-control ability and the part-list cueing effect. In this study, undergraduate students with different cognitive inhibitory ability were asked to finish a part-list recall task, and participants’ age, learning experience, and living background etc. were well balanced. In Experiment 1, a color-word Stroop task was carried out to test participants’ inhibitory ability, which can be reflected by the accuracy difference between the incongruent and congruent conditions of the Stroop task. In Experiment 2, participants’ working memory capacity, which is typically reflected by the OSPAN and T-OSPAN scores, was tested by an operation span task. We found typical part-list cueing effect in both experiments, that participants’ memory performance, discrimination, and response bias for target items were worse in the part-list cue condition than in the non-cue condition. The regression analysis showed a negative relationship (b = -2.525) between the amount of part-list cue effect and participants’ cognitive inhibitory ability, with the increasing Stroop effect, the part-list effect reduced. However, a positive correlation was shown between the amount of part-list cue effect and individual’s working memory capacity, indicated by the OSPAN score and T-OSPAN score. Higher the OSPAN and T-OSPAN score is, larger part-list cue effect was observed. The above results indicated that low-Stroop-effect individuals showing stronger part-list cueing effect than high-Stroop-effect individuals, and high-WMC individuals showing more part-list cueing effect than low-WMC individuals. Our findings are consistent with previous studies looking into individual-differences, suggesting a close link between working memory capacity, cognitive inhibitory ability and inhibitory efficiency. In addition, the current results also support the inhibitory executive-control account of part-list cueing effect.
Key words part-list cueing effect    working memory capacity    Stroop task    inhibition    individual difference
收稿日期: 2016-09-27      出版日期: 2017-07-14
ZTFLH:     
  B842  
基金资助: 天津市科技计划项目“天津市民心理健康素质监测系统开发” (12ZCZDSF07100); 天津市高等学校心理健康与行为调控创新团队(39); 河南省哲学社会科学规划项目(2016CJY034); 河南省教育科学“十三五”规划课题([2016]-JKGHB-0254); 河南省教育厅人文社会科学研究项目(2015-QN-362)的资助。
通讯作者: 白学军, E-mail: bxuejun@126.com     E-mail: E-mail: bxuejun@126.com
引用本文:   
刘湍丽, 白学军.  部分线索对记忆提取的影响:认知抑制能力的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(9): 1158-1171.
LIU Tuanli, BAI Xuejun.  The effect of part-list cues on memory retrieval: The role of inhibition ability. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(9): 1158-1171.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.01158      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2017/V49/I9/1158
[1] 朱祖德, 段懿行, 王穗苹.  个体差异对工作记忆训练迁移效果的调节[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(8): 1022-1030.
[2] 杨海波;赵欣;汪洋;张磊;王瑞萌; 张毅;王力. PTSD青少年执行功能缺陷的情绪特异性[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(5): 643-652.
[3] 尹华站;李丹;陈盈羽;黄希庭. 1~6秒时距认知分段性特征[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(9): 1119-1129.
[4] 王雨晴;游旭群;焦健;谌鹏飞. 观点采择:基于自我的推理及其个体差异[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(8): 1039-1049.
[5] 吴彦文;游旭群;李海霞. 注意力资源限制与双任务的相互干扰机制[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(2): 174-184.
[6] 白学军;刘湍丽;沈德立. 部分线索效应的认知抑制过程:情绪Stroop任务证据[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(2): 143-155.
[7] 王岩;辛婷婷;刘兴华;张韵;卢焕华;翟彦斌. 正念训练的去自动化效应:Stroop和前瞻记忆任务证据[J]. 心理学报, 2012, 44(9): 1180-1188.
[8] 刘玲,李荆广,宋宜颖,刘嘉. COMT基因对注意控制神经基础的调控效应:影像遗传学研究的元分析[J]. 心理学报, 2012, 44(4): 446-458.
[9] 唐丹丹,刘培朵,陈安涛. 冲突观察能诱发冲突适应[J]. 心理学报, 2012, 44(3): 295-303.
[10] 张璇,杨玉芳. 工作记忆广度对语篇理解中重读效应的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2010, 42(07): 727-734.
[11] Jean-Franç,ois Bonnefon,Stéphane Vautier. 关于实验心理学中推理的现代心理测量方法[J]. 心理学报, 2010, 42(01): 99-110.
[12] 郑希耕,李勇辉,罗小景,肖琳,杨小燕,隋南. 吗啡行为及条件性行为敏感化效应及其个体差异[J]. 心理学报, 2005, 37(03): 351-356.
[13] 方富熹,唐洪,刘彭芝. 12岁儿童充分条件假言推理能力发展的个体差异研究[J]. 心理学报, 2000, 32(03): 269-275.
[14] 孙福立,严亦蔼,雷淑萍,焦艳,李德明. 不同认知作业年老化特点的比较研究[J]. 心理学报, 1992, 24(04): 38-44.
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