自我信息识别优势——来自注意定向网络的证据

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.01356

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

研究采用注意网络测验任务(attention network test, ANT), 分别检验自我相关信息在注意的警觉、定向和执行控制网络上的加工效率差异, 以揭示自我信息识别优势的注意机制。实验1考察了面孔类型(自我面孔或他人面孔)在3种注意网络下的加工效率差异; 实验2采用自我联结学习范式对实验1进行验证; 实验3将颜色类型(红色或绿色)作为目标刺激, 面孔类型作为背景, 以考察任务无关自我信息是否对注意网络加工效率有影响。研究结果发现, 当自我信息为目标时, 个体在注意定向网络上存在加工效率优势, 而警觉和执行控制网络上没有加工效率差异。当自我相关信息与任务无关时, 在注意的警觉、定向和执行控制网络中均未表现出加工效率优势。说明了自我信息的注意优势发生在注意定向网络上, 且受任务优先性影响。

关键词: 自我信息, 注意网络测验, 警觉, 定向, 执行控制

Abstract:

The cognitive advantage of self-related information using various stimuli has been established in several studies. To explore the mechanism for this effect, this study examined the attention functions in the process of self-related information. By adopting the Attention Network Test (ANT), this study compared the process of self-related information to that of friend-related information in alerting, orienting and executive control networks

In Experiment 1, participants were assigned a classic ANT task in which arrow stimuli were replaced by face stimuli. In each trial, a test array consisted of one central target and four flanker stimuli. Participants were instructed to pay attention to the central target and judge whether the image was a self-face or a friend-face. Each test array was preceded by one of four cues, namely centre, double, spatial and none. Results showed that participants had a stable advantage in processing self-face. Specifically, the efficiency of orienting on self-face was significantly larger than on friend-face

In Experiment 2, a recently developed self-associated learning approach was employed to exclude the possible confounding of face familiarity. The stimuli used in Experiment 2 were geometric shapes that were temporarily associated with self or friend or had no social meaning. The result was consistent with that in Experiment 1. Self-associated shapes displayed advantages on orienting efficiency compared to friend-associated and non-social-meaning shapes. This finding implied that the improvement of orienting network on self-information processing was due to the important meanings in self-information apart from the simple familiarity of self-face

In Experiment 3, the processing priority of orienting network on self-face no longer existed when the task was to determine the colour of the face. This condition indicated that the cognitive advantage for self-information in orienting network was influenced by task requirements

In summary, this study found that among the three attention networks, only orienting network displayed a processing priority of self-related information and, therefore, played a more important role in self-processing advantage. Such advantage occurred only when self-information was task-related. By contrast, no special biases on self-related information processing were found in the alerting and executive control networks.

Key words: self-related information, attention network test, alerting, orienting, executive control.

中图分类号:

B842

高虹, 李杨卓, 胡蝶, 朱敏, 高湘萍, 胡天翊. (2018). 自我信息识别优势——来自注意定向网络的证据. 心理学报, 50(12), 1356-1368.

GAO Hong, LI Yangzhuo, HU Die, ZHU Min, GAO Xiangping, HU Tianyi. (2018). Cognitive advantage for self-information: Evidence from the orienting network of attention. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(12), 1356-1368.

图/表 9

参考文献 49

1	Callejas A., Lupiàñez J., Funes M. J., & Tudela P . ( 2005). Modulations among the alerting, orienting and executive control networks. Experimental Brain Research, 167( 1), 27-37. doi: 10.1007/s00221-005-2365-z URL pmid: 16021429
2	Corbetta M., &Shulman , G. L . ( 2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3( 3), 201-215.
3	Corbetta M., Patel G., & Shulman G. L . ( 2008). The reorienting system of the human brain: From environment to theory of mind. Neuron, 58( 3), 306-324. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.04.017 URL pmid: 18466742
4	Crottaz-Herbette S., &Menon V. , ( 2006). Where and when the anterior cingulate cortex modulates attentional response: Combined fMRI and ERP evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18( 5), 766-780. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.5.766 URL pmid: 16768376
5	Devue C., &Brédart S. , ( 2008). Attention to self-referential stimuli: Can I ignore my own face? Acta Psychologica, 128( 2), 290-297. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.02.004 URL pmid: 18413272
6	Devue C., Laloyaux C., Feyers D., Theeuwes J., & Brédart S . ( 2009). Do pictures of faces, and which ones, capture attention in the inattentional-blindness paradigm? Perception, 38( 4), 552-568.
7	Devue C., Van der Stigchel S., Brédart S., & Theeuwes J . ( 2009). You do not find your own face faster; you just look at it longer. Cognition, 111( 1), 114-122. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.003 URL pmid: 19230872
8	Engle R.W., &Kane , M. J . ( 2003). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 44, 145-199.
9	Fan J., McCandliss B. D., Fossella J., Flombaum J. I., & Posner M. I . ( 2005). The activation of attentional networks. Neuroimage, 26( 2), 471-479. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.004 URL pmid: 15907304
10	Fan J., McCandliss B. D., Sommer T., Raz A., & Posner M. I . ( 2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14( 3), 340-347. doi: 10.1162/089892902317361886 URL pmid: 11970796
11	Farrant K., &Uddin , L. Q . ( 2015). Asymmetric development of dorsal and ventral attention networks in the human brain. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 165-174. doi: 10.1016/j.dcn.2015.02.001 URL pmid: 4396619
12	Federico F., Marotta A., Adriani T., Maccari L., & Casagrande M . ( 2013). Attention network test — The impact of social information on executive control, alerting and orienting. Acta Psychologica, 143( 1), 65-70. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.02.006 URL pmid: 23542806
13	Gao W., Gilmore J. H., Shen D., Smith J. K., Zhu H., & Lin W . ( 2013). The synchronization within and interaction between the default and dorsal attention networks in early infancy. Cerebral Cortex, 23( 3), 594-603. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhs043 URL pmid: 3563337
14	Garza J. P., Strom M. J., Wright C. E., Roberts R. J., & Reed C. L . ( 2013). Top-down influences mediate hand bias in spatial attention. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 75( 5), 819-823. doi: 10.3758/s13414-013-0480-7 URL pmid: 23722884
15	Hackley S.A., &Valle-Inclán F. , ( 1999). Accessory stimulus effects on response selection: Does arousal speed decision making? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11( 3), 321-329. doi: 10.1162/089892999563427 URL pmid: 10402259
16	Hackley S.A., &Valle-Inclán F. , ( 2003). Which stages of processing are speeded by a warning signal? Biological Psychology, 64( 1-2), 27-45. doi: 10.1016/S0301-0511(03)00101-7 URL pmid: 14602354
17	Haykin S., Fatemi M., Setoodeh P., & Xue Y . ( 2012). Cognitive control. Proceedings of the IEEE, 100( 12), 3156-3169.
18	Indovina I. &Macaluso E. , ( 2007). Dissociation of stimulus relevance and saliency factors during shifts of visuospatial attention. Cerebral Cortex, 17( 7), 1701-1711. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhl081 URL pmid: 17003078
19	Jannati A., Gaspar J. M., & McDonald J. J . ( 2013). Tracking target and distractor processing in fixed-feature visual search: Evidence from human electrophysiology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39( 6), 1713-1730. doi: 10.1037/a0032251 URL pmid: 23527999
20	Keyes H. &Dlugokencka A. , ( 2014). Do I have my attention? Speed of processing advantages for the self-face are not driven by automatic attention capture. PLoS One, 9( 10), e110792. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110792 URL pmid: 4206440
21	Kim J., Kang M. S., Cho Y. S., & Lee S. H . ( 2017). Prolonged interruption of cognitive control of conflict processing over human faces by task-irrelevant emotion expression. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1024. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01024 URL pmid: 5476788
22	Kratz O., Studer P., Malcherek S., Erbe K., Moll G. H., & Heinrich H . ( 2011). Attentional processes in children with ADHD: An event-related potential study using the attention network test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 81( 2), 82-90. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.05.008 URL pmid: 21641942
23	Li H., &Cai H.D, . ( 2013). The modulation of emotion on the attentional function networks. Advances in Psychological Science, 21( 1), 59-67. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00059 URL
24	[ 李贺, 蔡厚德 . ( 2013). 情绪对注意功能网络的调制. 心理科学进展, 21( 1), 59-67.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00059 URL
25	Liu M. H., Wang L. Y., Sui J., & Zhang M . ( 2012). Modulation of self-face for visual spatial attention: Evidence from a Posner’s cueing paradigm. Journal of Psychological Science, 35( 1), 24-29.
26	Mackie M. A., Dam N. T. V., & Fan J . ( 2013). Cognitive control and attentional functions. Brain and Cognition, 82( 3), 301-312. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2013.05.004 URL pmid: 23792472
27	Moray N.., ( 1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11( 1), 56-60. doi: 10.1080/17470215908416289 URL
28	Mueller. C.J., &Kuchinke , L. ( 2016). Processing of face identity in the affective flanker task: A diffusion model analysis. Psychological Research, 80( 6), 1-11. doi: 10.1007/s00426-015-0696-3 URL pmid: 26253324
29	Neuhaus A. H., Urbanek C., Opgen-Rhein C., Hahn E., Ta T. M. T., Koehler S., .. Dettling M . ( 2010). Event-related potentials associated with attention network test. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 76( 2), 72-79. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2010.02.005 URL pmid: 20184924
30	Ninomiya H., Onitsuka T., Chen C. H., Sato E., & Tashiro N . ( 1998). P300 in response to the subject’s own face. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 52( 5), 519-522. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1819.1998.00445.x URL pmid: 10215014
31	Palermo R., & Rhodes G . ( 2007). Are you always on my mind? A review of how face perception and attention interact. Neuropsychologia, 45( 1), 75-92. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.04.025 URL pmid: 16797607
32	Pannese A., &Hirsch J. , ( 2010). Self-specific priming effect. Consciousness and Cognition, 19( 4), 962-968.
33	Petersen, S. E., &Posner , M. I . ( 2012). The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 35( 5), 73-89.
34	Posner, M. I., &Petersen , S. E . ( 1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 25-42.
35	Rothbart, M. K., &Posner , M. I . ( 2015). The developing brain in a multitasking world. Developmental Review, 35, 42-63. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2014.12.006 URL pmid: 25821335
36	Shulman G. L., D'Avossa G., Tansy A. P., & Corbetta M . ( 2002). Two attentional processes in the parietal lobe. Cerebral Cortex, 12( 11), 1124-1131. doi: 10.1093/cercor/12.11.1124 URL pmid: 12379601
37	Spagna A., Martella D., Sebastiani M., Maccari L., Marotta A., & Casagrande M . ( 2014). Efficiency and interactions of alerting, orienting and executive networks: The impact of imperative stimulus type. Acta Psychologica, 148( 3), 209-215. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.02.007 URL pmid: 24607440
38	Sui J., Liu C. H., Wang L., & Han S . ( 2009). Attentional orientation induced by temporarily established self- referential cues. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62( 5), 844-849. doi: 10.1080/17470210802559393 URL pmid: 19132633
39	Sui J., Rotshtein P., & Humphreys G. W . ( 2013). Coupling social attention to the self forms a network for personal significance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110( 19), 7607-7612. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1221862110 URL
40	Sui J., Zhu Y., & Han S. H . ( 2006). Self-face recognition in attended and unattended conditions: An event-related brain potential study. Neuroreport, 17( 4), 423-427. doi: 10.1097/01.wnr.0000203357.65190.61 URL pmid: 16514370
41	Tang X., Wu J., & Shen Y . ( 2006). The interactions of multisensory integration with endogenous and exogenous attention. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 61( 14), 208-224 doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.11.002 URL pmid: 26546734
42	Tong F.., &Nakayama , K. ( 1999). Robust representations for faces: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25( 4), 1016-1035. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.25.4.1016 URL pmid: 10464943
43	Turk D. J., Brady-van Den Bos M., Collard P., Gillespie- Smith K., Conway M. A., & Cunningham S. J . ( 2013). Divided attention selectively impairs memory for self- relevant information. Memory & Cognition, 41( 4), 503-510. doi: 10.3758/s13421-012-0279-0 URL pmid: 23263878
44	Uddin L.Q . ( 2015). Salience processing and insular cortical function and dysfunction. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16( 1), 55-61. doi: 10.1038/nrn3857 URL pmid: 25406711
45	Visintin E., De Panfilis C., Antonucci C., Capecci C., Marchesi C., & Sambataro F . ( 2015). Parsing the intrinsic networks underlying attention: A resting state study. Behavioural Brain Research, 278, 315-322. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2014.10.002 URL pmid: 25311282
46	Wang X., Zhao X., Gui X., & Chen A . ( 2016). Alertness function of thalamus in conflict adaptation. NeuroImage, 132, 274-282. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.048 URL pmid: 26908318
47	Xuan B., Mackie M. A., Spagna A., Wu T., Tian Y., Hof P. R., & Fan J . ( 2016). The activation of interactive attentional networks. NeuroImage, 129, 308-319. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.01.017 URL pmid: 26794640
48	Yamada Y., Kawabe T., & Miura K . ( 2012). One's own name distorts visual space. Neuroscience Letters, 531( 2), 96-98. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2012.10.028 URL pmid: 23127857
49	Zhu M., Hu Y., Tang X., Luo J., & Gao X . ( 2015). Withholding response to self-face is faster than to other- face. Journal of Motor Behavior, 47( 2), 117-123. doi: 10.1080/00222895.2014.959888 URL pmid: 25356599

侧翼类型	线索类型	自我面孔		朋友面孔
侧翼类型	线索类型	反应时	正确率	反应时	正确率
侧翼一致	无线索	684 ± 59	97.32 ± 3.96	714 ± 65	97.32 ± 6.02
	双重线索	636 ± 60	97.62 ± 4.45	677 ± 63	98.21 ± 4.16
	中央线索	640 ± 56	96.13 ± 5.77	683 ± 59	98.51 ± 3.25
	空间线索	587 ± 62	97.92 ± 4.32	633 ± 61	97.62 ± 4.45
平均值		636 ± 53	97.25 ± 2.60	676 ± 54	97.92 ± 2.78
侧翼冲突	无线索	698 ± 58	91.13 ± 6.20	723 ± 45	97.02 ± 5.18
	双重线索	654 ± 65	97.02 ± 4.66	686 ± 60	97.62 ± 4.45
	中央线索	670 ± 63	94.94 ± 7.64	698 ± 65	95.83 ± 6.99
	空间线索	596 ± 73	98.21 ± 4.12	653 ± 65	98.21 ± 4.16
平均值		654 ± 56	96.80 ± 3.08	690 ± 51	97.17 ± 3.22

侧翼类型	线索类型	自我面孔		朋友面孔
侧翼类型	线索类型	反应时	正确率	反应时	正确率
侧翼一致	无线索	684 ± 59	97.32 ± 3.96	714 ± 65	97.32 ± 6.02
	双重线索	636 ± 60	97.62 ± 4.45	677 ± 63	98.21 ± 4.16
	中央线索	640 ± 56	96.13 ± 5.77	683 ± 59	98.51 ± 3.25
	空间线索	587 ± 62	97.92 ± 4.32	633 ± 61	97.62 ± 4.45
平均值		636 ± 53	97.25 ± 2.60	676 ± 54	97.92 ± 2.78
侧翼冲突	无线索	698 ± 58	91.13 ± 6.20	723 ± 45	97.02 ± 5.18
	双重线索	654 ± 65	97.02 ± 4.66	686 ± 60	97.62 ± 4.45
	中央线索	670 ± 63	94.94 ± 7.64	698 ± 65	95.83 ± 6.99
	空间线索	596 ± 73	98.21 ± 4.12	653 ± 65	98.21 ± 4.16
平均值		654 ± 56	96.80 ± 3.08	690 ± 51	97.17 ± 3.22

侧翼类型	线索类型	自我图形		朋友图形		无社会意义图形
侧翼类型	线索类型	反应时	正确率	反应时	正确率	反应时	正确率
侧翼一致	无线索	613 ± 64	98.33 ± 3.39	627 ± 58	97.50 ± 4.97	647 ± 80	97.22 ± 5.03
	双重线索	553 ± 64	98.06 ± 3.58	562 ± 62	97.22 ± 4.55	581 ± 76	96.39 ± 5.66
	中央线索	563 ± 62	96.39 ± 4.20	566 ± 67	96.67 ± 4.69	570 ± 76	97.78 ± 6.16
	空间线索	526 ± 62	96.67 ± 6.03	549 ± 62	97.50 ± 4.46	572 ± 81	96.95 ± 4.63
平均值		564 ± 58	97.36 ± 3.32	576 ± 59	97.22 ± 3.30	593 ± 71	97.08 ± 4.53
侧翼冲突	无线索	635 ± 71	96.11 ± 6.09	634 ± 58	98.06 ± 4.20	649 ± 68	98.06 ± 3.58
	双重线索	574 ± 62	98.33 ± 3.39	587 ± 68	96.94 ± 5.99	602 ± 68	98.61 ± 3.84
	中央线索	587 ± 54	98.06 ± 4.20	584 ± 56	97.22 ± 5.93	608 ± 72	97.78 ± 4.86
	空间线索	550 ± 59	97.78 ± 4.86	575 ± 61	98.61 ± 3.84	585 ± 68	97.22 ± 5.05
平均值		586 ± 57	97.57 ± 3.33	595 ± 56	97.71 ± 3.60	611 ± 65	97.92 ± 3.37

侧翼类型	线索类型	自我图形		朋友图形		无社会意义图形
侧翼类型	线索类型	反应时	正确率	反应时	正确率	反应时	正确率
侧翼一致	无线索	613 ± 64	98.33 ± 3.39	627 ± 58	97.50 ± 4.97	647 ± 80	97.22 ± 5.03
	双重线索	553 ± 64	98.06 ± 3.58	562 ± 62	97.22 ± 4.55	581 ± 76	96.39 ± 5.66
	中央线索	563 ± 62	96.39 ± 4.20	566 ± 67	96.67 ± 4.69	570 ± 76	97.78 ± 6.16
	空间线索	526 ± 62	96.67 ± 6.03	549 ± 62	97.50 ± 4.46	572 ± 81	96.95 ± 4.63
平均值		564 ± 58	97.36 ± 3.32	576 ± 59	97.22 ± 3.30	593 ± 71	97.08 ± 4.53
侧翼冲突	无线索	635 ± 71	96.11 ± 6.09	634 ± 58	98.06 ± 4.20	649 ± 68	98.06 ± 3.58
	双重线索	574 ± 62	98.33 ± 3.39	587 ± 68	96.94 ± 5.99	602 ± 68	98.61 ± 3.84
	中央线索	587 ± 54	98.06 ± 4.20	584 ± 56	97.22 ± 5.93	608 ± 72	97.78 ± 4.86
	空间线索	550 ± 59	97.78 ± 4.86	575 ± 61	98.61 ± 3.84	585 ± 68	97.22 ± 5.05
平均值		586 ± 57	97.57 ± 3.33	595 ± 56	97.71 ± 3.60	611 ± 65	97.92 ± 3.37

侧翼类型	线索类型	红色		绿色
侧翼类型	线索类型	反应时	正确率	反应时	正确率
侧翼一致	无线索	664 ± 114	97.92 ± 3.68	674 ± 116	98.26 ± 5.48
	双重线索	683 ± 104	98.61 ± 3.17	693 ± 116	98.61 ± 4.01
	中央线索	632 ± 117	96.88 ± 5.39	643 ± 123	98.96 ± 2.81
	空间线索	695 ± 114	98.96 ± 2.81	702 ± 110	98.61 ±3.17
平均值		678 ± 111	97.66 ± 2.07	669 ± 105	98.35 ± 2.30
侧翼冲突	无线索	656 ± 119	96.53 ± 6.46	678 ± 117	97.92 ± 4.43
	双重线索	614 ± 123	97.57 ± 4.58	628 ± 142	98.61 ± 3.17
	中央线索	640 ± 122	96.18 ± 5.48	637 ± 125	97.22 ± 5.31
	空间线索	630 ± 116	98.96 ± 2.81	650 ± 133	98.96 ± 2.81
平均值		648 ± 124	97.31 ± 2.34	635 ± 116	97.74 ± 2.67