中文阅读中无关言语效应的认知机制探究：眼动证据

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00729

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

采用眼动追踪技术探讨中文阅读中无关言语效应的影响机制, 操纵了背景音的类型(有意义背景音、无意义背景音、无声), 通过3个实验考察其对简单句、复杂句、篇章阅读的影响。结果发现, 被试在无意义背景音条件下加工三类阅读材料时的眼动指标与无声条件相比差异均不显著; 但是, 在有意义背景音条件下, 被试在进行复杂句和篇章阅读时的眼动指标与无声条件相比差异显著, 而在简单句阅读中差异不显著。结果表明, 语义属性才是影响无关言语效应产生的关键因素, 其所起作用受到阅读任务难度的调节, 而对阅读过程的影响主要体现在晚期的词汇加工和语义整合阶段, 本研究结果支持了语义干扰假说。

关键词: 无关言语效应, 背景音, 阅读, 认知机制, 眼动

Abstract:

A wealth of research shows that irrelevant background speech can interfere with reading behavior. This effect is often described as the irrelevant speech effect (ISE). Two key theories have been proposed to account for this effect; namely, the Phonological-Interference Hypothesis and the Semantic-Interference Hypothesis. Few studies have investigated the irrelevant speech effect in Chinese reading. Moreover, the underlying mechanisms for the effect also remain unclear. Accordingly, with the present research we examined the irrelevant speech effect in Chinese using eye movement measures.
Three experiments were conducted to explore the effects of different kinds of background speech. Experiment 1 used simple sentences, Experiment 2 used complex sentence, and Experiment 3 used paragraphs. The participants in each experiment were skilled readers who were undergraduate recruited from the university, who read the sentence while their eye movements were recorded using an EyeLink 1000 eye-tracker (SR Research inc.). The three experiments used the same background speech conditions. In an unintelligible background speech condition, participants heard irrelevant speech in Spanish (which none of the participants could understand), while in an intelligible background speech condition, they heard irrelevant speech in Chinese. Finally, in third condition, the participants read in silence, with no background speech present.
The results showed no significant difference in key eye movement measures (total reading time, average fixation duration, number of fixations, number of regressions, total fixation time, and regression path reading time) for the silent compared to the unintelligible background speech condition across all three experiments. In Experiment 1, which used simple sentences as stimuli, there was also no significant difference between the silent and intelligible background speech condition. However, in Experiment 2, which used more complex sentences, normal reading was disrupted in the intelligible background speech condition compared to silence, revealing an ISE for these more difficult sentences. Compared with the silent condition, the intelligible background speech produced longer reading times and average fixation duration, more numbers of fixations and regressions, longer regression path reading time and longer total fixation times. Finally, Experiment 3 also produced evidence for an ISE, with longer total reading times, more fixations, and longer regression path reading times and total reading times in the intelligible background speech condition compared with silence.
To sum up, the results of the current three experiments suggest that: (1) unintelligible speech does not disrupt normal reading significantly, contrary to the Phonological-Interference Hypothesis; (2) intelligible background speech can disrupt the reading of complex (but not simpler) sentences and also paragraph reading, supporting the Semantic-Interference Hypothesis. Such findings suggest that irrelevant speech might disrupt later stages of lexical processing and semantic integration in reading, and that this effect is modulated by the difficulty of the reading task.

Key words: irrelevant speech effect, background speech, reading, cognitive mechanism, eye-movements

中图分类号:

B842

吴三美, 田良苏, 陈家侨, 陈广耀, 王敬欣. (2021). 中文阅读中无关言语效应的认知机制探究：眼动证据. 心理学报, 53(7), 729-745.

WU Sanmei, TIAN Liangsu, CHEN Jiaqiao, CHEN Guangyao, WANG Jingxin. (2021). Exploring the cognitive mechanism of irrelevant speech effect in Chinese reading: Evidence from eye movements. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(7), 729-745.

图/表 12

参考文献 53

[1]	Armstrong, G. B., Boiarsky, G. A., & Mares, M.-L. (1991). Background television and reading performance. Communications Monographs, 58(3), 235-253. doi: 10.1080/03637759109376228 URL
[2]	Bai, X. J., & Yan, G. L. (2017). Psychology of reading. Shanghai, China: East China Normal University Press.
	[白学军, 闫国利. (2017). 阅读心理学. 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.]
[3]	Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390-412. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005 URL
[4]	Baddeley, A. D. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[5]	Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 8, 47-89.
[6]	Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1994). Developments in the concept of working memory. Neuropsychology, 8(4), 485-493. doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.8.4.485 URL
[7]	Baker, R. W., & Madell, T. O. (1965). A continued investigation of susceptibility to distraction in academically underachieving and achieving male college students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 56(5), 254-258. pmid: 5825844
[8]	Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2011). LME4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R Package Version 0.999375-39. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4
[9]	Boyle, R., & Coltheart, V. (1996). Effects of irrelevant sounds on phonological coding in reading comprehension and short-term memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 49(2), 398-416. doi: 10.1080/713755630 URL
[10]	Cauchard, F., Cane, J. E., & Weger, U. W. (2012). Influence of background speech and music in interrupted reading: An eye-tracking study. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(3), 381-390. doi: 10.1002/acp.v26.3 URL
[11]	Franconeri, S. L., Alvarez, G. A., & Cavanagh, P. (2013). Flexible cognitive resources: Competitive content maps for attention and memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(3), 134-141. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.01.010 URL
[12]	Gao, Q., & Bai, X. J. (2018). The influence of Chinese and English background pop music to the memory of Chinese and English words in Chinese undergraduates. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(1), 1-8. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00001 URL
	[高淇, 白学军. (2018). 中英流行背景音乐对大学生中英词汇记忆的影响. 心理学报, 50(1), 1-8.]
[13]	Garcia-Madruga, J. A., Elosua, M. R., Gil, L., Gomez-Veiga, I., Vila, J. O., Orjales, I., ... Duque, G. (2013). Reading comprehension and working memory's executive processes: An intervention study in primary school students. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 155-174. doi: 10.1002/rrq.2013.48.issue-2 URL
[14]	Gernsbacher, M. A., & Foertsch, J. A. (2000). Three models of discourse comprehension. In S. Garrod & M. J. Pickering (Eds.), Language processing (pp.283-299). East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
[15]	Haapakangas, A., Kankkunen, E., Hongisto, V., Virjonen, P., Oliva, D., & Keskinen, E. (2011). Effects of five speech masking sounds on performance and acoustic satisfaction. Implications for open-plan offices. Acta Acustica United With Acustica, 97, 641-655. doi: 10.3813/AAA.918444 URL
[16]	Haka, M., Haapakangas, A., Keränen, J., Hakala, J., Keskinen, E., & Hongisto, V. (2009). Performance effects and subjective disturbance of speech in acoustically different office types—A laboratory experiment. Indoor Air, 19(6), 454-467. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.2009.00608.x pmid: 19702627
[17]	Halin, N. (2016). Distracted while reading? Changing to a hard-to-read font shields against the effects of environmental noise and speech on text memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1196.
[18]	Halin, N., Marsh, J. E., Haga, A., Holmgren, M., & Sörqvist, P. (2014). Effects of speech on proofreading: Can task-engagement manipulations shield against distraction? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(1), 69-80. doi: 10.1037/xap0000002 URL
[19]	Halin, N., Marsh, J. E., Hellman, A., Hellström, I., & Sörqvist, P. (2014). A shield against distraction. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 3(1), 31-36. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2014.01.003 URL
[20]	He, L. Y., Huang, Y. Y., Wang, M. X., Meng, Z., & Yan, G. L. (2015). The effects of background noise on Chinese passage reading: An eye movement study. Journal of Psychological Science, 38(6), 1290-1295.
	[何立媛, 黄有玉, 王梦轩, 孟珠, 闫国利. (2015). 不同背景音对中文篇章阅读影响的眼动研究. 心理科学, 38(6), 1290-1295.]
[21]	Hyönä, J., & Ekholm, M. (2016). Background speech effects on sentence processing during reading: An eye movement study. PloS One, 11(3), Article e0152133.
[22]	Jahncke, H., Hygge, S., Halin, N., Green, A. M., & Dimberg, K. (2011). Open-plan office noise: Cognitive performance and restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(4), 373-382. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.07.002 URL
[23]	Jones, D., Madden, C., & Miles, C. (1992). Privileged access by irrelevant speech to short-term memory: The role of changing state. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44(4), 645-669. doi: 10.1080/14640749208401304 URL
[24]	Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort (Vol. 1063). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
[25]	Kehler, A. (2004). Discourse coherence. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp.241-265). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
[26]	Li, X., Bai X. J., & Yan G. L. (2011). The role of word boundary and frequency during Chinese reading. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 9(2), 133-139.
	[李馨, 白学军, 闫国利. (2011). 词边界信息和词频在汉语阅读中的作用. 心理与行为研究, 9(2), 133-139.]
[27]	Ma, X., Liu, J., Liu, Y., Tao, Y., Zhang, Q. Y., & Chen, R. (2015). Effect of background music on Chinese and English reading comprehension. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 13(4), 472-478.
	[马谐, 刘佳, 刘艳, 陶云, 张秋月, 陈睿. (2015). 背景音乐对中—英文阅读理解的影响效应. 心理与行为研究, 13(4), 472-478.]
[28]	Marsh, J. E., Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M. (2008). Auditory distraction in semantic memory: A process-based approach. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(3), 682-700. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.05.002 URL
[29]	Marsh, J. E., Hughes, R. W., & Jones, D. M. (2009). Interference by process, not content, determines semantic auditory distraction. Cognition, 110(1), 23-38. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.08.003 pmid: 19081558
[30]	Marsh, J. E., Perham, N., Sörqvist, P., & Jones, D. M. (2014). Boundaries of semantic distraction: Dominance and lexicality act at retrieval. Memory & Cognition, 42(8), 1285-1301.
[31]	Martin, R. C., Wogalter, M. S., & Forlano, J. G. (1988). Reading comprehension in the presence of unattended speech and music. Journal of Memory and Language, 27(4), 382-398. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(88)90063-0 URL
[32]	Meng, Z., Lan, Z., Yan, G., Marsh, J. E., Liversedge, S. P. (2020). Task demands modulate the effects of speech on text processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(10), 1892-1905.
[33]	Meng, Z., & Yan, G. L. (2018). Mechanism of the irrelevant speech effect in reading: Is the interference determined by content, or process?. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(2), 262-269. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.00262 URL
	[孟珠, 闫国利. (2018). 阅读任务中无关言语效应的作用机制: 干扰基于内容还是过程? 心理科学进展, 26(2), 262-269.]
[34]	O’Brien, E. J., & Cook, A. E. (2015). Models of discourse comprehension. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp.217-231). New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
[35]	Oswald, C. J. P., Tremblay, S., & Jones, D. M. (2000). Disruption of comprehension by the meaning of irrelevant sound. Memory, 8(5), 345-350. pmid: 11045242
[36]	Peng, D. L. (2004). Cognitive processing of the Chinese language and its neural mechanism. Contemporary Linguistics, 6(4), 302-320.
	[彭聃龄. (2004). 汉语信息加工及其认知神经机制的研究——20年研究工作的回顾. 当代语言学, 6(4), 302-320.]
[37]	Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1457-1506.
[38]	Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Ashby, J., & Clifton, C. J. (2012). Psychology of reading (2nd ed.). New York, USA: Psychology Press.
[39]	R Development Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
[40]	Robert, G., & Hockey, J. (1997). Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework. Biological Psychology, 45(1-3),73-93. doi: 10.1016/S0301-0511(96)05219-2 URL
[41]	Salamé, P., & Baddeley, A. (1982). Disruption of short-term memory by unattended speech: Implications for the structure of working memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21(2), 150-164. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(82)90521-7 URL
[42]	Salamé, P., & Baddeley, A. (1987). Noise, unattended speech and short-term memory. Ergonomics, 30(8), 1185-1194.
[43]	Salamé, P., & Baddeley, A. (1989). Effects of background music on phonological short-term memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41(1), 107-122. doi: 10.1080/14640748908402355 URL
[44]	Ünal, A. B., Steg, L., & Epstude, K. (2012). The influence of music on mental effort and driving performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 48(9), 271-278. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2012.01.022 URL
[45]	Vasilev, M. R., Kirkby, J. A., & Bernhard, A. (2018). Auditory distraction during reading: A Bayesian meta-analysis of a continuing controversy. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(5), 567-597. doi: 10.1177/1745691617747398 pmid: 29958067
[46]	Vasilev, M. R., Liversedge, S. P., Rowan, D., Kirkby, J. A., & Angele, B. (2019). Reading is disrupted by intelligible background speech: Evidence from eye-tracking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(11), 1-93. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000578 URL
[47]	Vasilev, M. R., Parmentier, F. B. R., Angele, B., & Kirkby, J. A. (2019). Distraction by deviant sounds during reading: An eye-movement study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(7), 1863-1875.
[48]	Venetjoki, N., Kaarlela-Tuomaala, A., Keskinen, E., & Hongisto, V. (2006). The effect of speech and speech intelligibility on task performance. Ergonomics, 49(11), 1068-1091.
[49]	Wickens, C. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159-177. doi: 10.1080/14639220210123806 URL
[50]	Wolf, F., & Gibson, E. (2005). Representing discourse coherence: A corpus-based study. Computational Linguistics, 31(2), 249-287. doi: 10.1162/0891201054223977 URL
[51]	Yan, G., Meng, Z., Liu, N., He, L., & Paterson, K. B. (2017). Effects of irrelevant background speech on eye movements during reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(6), 1270-1275.
[52]	Yan, G. L., Fu, G., & Bai., X. J. (2008). The perceptual span and eye movements in reading Chinese materials of different degrees of difficulty. Journal of Psychological Science, 31(6), 1287-1290.
	[闫国利, 伏干, 白学军. (2008). 不同难度阅读材料对阅读知觉广度影响的眼动研究. 心理科学. 31(6), 1287-1290.]
[53]	Yan, G. L., Xiong, J. P., Zang, C. L., Yu, L. L., Cui, l., & Bai, X. J. (2013). Review of eye-movement measures in reading research. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(4), 589-605. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00589 URL
	[闫国利, 熊建萍, 臧传丽, 余莉莉, 崔磊, 白学军. (2013). 阅读研究中的主要眼动指标评述. 心理科学进展, 21(4), 589-605.]

背景音条件	平均注视时间(ms)	句子阅读时间(ms)	句子注视次数	回视次数
无声	224 (1)	4819 (66)	12.67 (0.14)	3.22 (0.06)
无意义语音	224 (1)	4674 (60)	12.38 (0.13)	3.29 (0.06)
有意义语音	225 (1)	4899 (66)	13.22 (0.16)	3.62 (0.07)

背景音条件	平均注视时间(ms)	句子阅读时间(ms)	句子注视次数	回视次数
无声	224 (1)	4819 (66)	12.67 (0.14)	3.22 (0.06)
无意义语音	224 (1)	4674 (60)	12.38 (0.13)	3.29 (0.06)
有意义语音	225 (1)	4899 (66)	13.22 (0.16)	3.62 (0.07)

变量	平均注视时间					句子阅读时间
变量	β	SE	t	p	95% CI	β	SE	t	p	95% CI
截距	224.03	4.32	51.91	< 0.001	[5.15, 5.43]	4788.43	232.69	20.58	< 0.001	[8.28, 8.56]
无意义语音vs无声	-0.38	2.24	-0.17	0.87	[-0.12, 0.32]	-146.26	118.41	-1.24	0.22	[-0.27, 0.13]
有意义语音vs无声	0.39	1.67	0.23	0.82	[0.17, 0.42]	58.82	103.85	0.57	0.57	[0.26, 0.55]
有意义语音vs无意义语音	0.56	1.9	0.29	0.77	[0.23, 0.58]	190	124.65	1.52	0.13	[0.15, 0.46]
变量	句子注视次数					回视次数
变量	β	SE	t	p	95% CI	β	SE	t	p	95% CI
截距	12.66	0.48	26.12	< 0.001	[2.19, 2.54]	3.28	0.18	18.37	< 0.001	[3.47, 3.86]
无意义语音vs无声	-0.31	0.3	-1.01	0.32	[-0.17, 0.33]	0.02	0.13	0.17	0.87	[0.07, 0.28]
有意义语音vs无声	0.45	0.28	1.59	0.12	[0.02, 0.37]	0.35	0.11	3.12	< 0.001	[0.05, 0.42]
有意义语音vs无意义语音	0.69	0.34	1.83	0.06	[0.11, 0.62]	0.30	0.15	2.08	0.04	[0.19, 0.67]

变量	平均注视时间					句子阅读时间
变量	β	SE	t	p	95% CI	β	SE	t	p	95% CI
截距	224.03	4.32	51.91	< 0.001	[5.15, 5.43]	4788.43	232.69	20.58	< 0.001	[8.28, 8.56]
无意义语音vs无声	-0.38	2.24	-0.17	0.87	[-0.12, 0.32]	-146.26	118.41	-1.24	0.22	[-0.27, 0.13]
有意义语音vs无声	0.39	1.67	0.23	0.82	[0.17, 0.42]	58.82	103.85	0.57	0.57	[0.26, 0.55]
有意义语音vs无意义语音	0.56	1.9	0.29	0.77	[0.23, 0.58]	190	124.65	1.52	0.13	[0.15, 0.46]
变量	句子注视次数					回视次数
变量	β	SE	t	p	95% CI	β	SE	t	p	95% CI
截距	12.66	0.48	26.12	< 0.001	[2.19, 2.54]	3.28	0.18	18.37	< 0.001	[3.47, 3.86]
无意义语音vs无声	-0.31	0.3	-1.01	0.32	[-0.17, 0.33]	0.02	0.13	0.17	0.87	[0.07, 0.28]
有意义语音vs无声	0.45	0.28	1.59	0.12	[0.02, 0.37]	0.35	0.11	3.12	< 0.001	[0.05, 0.42]
有意义语音vs无意义语音	0.69	0.34	1.83	0.06	[0.11, 0.62]	0.30	0.15	2.08	0.04	[0.19, 0.67]

背景音条件	首次注视时间(ms)	凝视时间(ms)	回视路径时间(ms)	总注视时间(ms)
无声	244 (3)	265 (4)	331 (9)	352 (7)
无意义语音	242 (3)	264 (4)	328 (9)	349 (7)
有意义语音	240 (3)	266 (5)	336 (10)	357 (7)