ISSN 0439-755X
CN 11-1911/B
主办:中国心理学会
   中国科学院心理研究所
出版:科学出版社

心理学报 ›› 2013, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (8): 860-873.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.00860

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

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. (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)
  • 收稿日期:2012-11-28 出版日期:2013-08-25 发布日期:2013-08-25
  • 通讯作者: 黄希庭
  • 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。

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. (1 School of Education Science, Chongqing Normal University, Chongqing 401331, China) (2 School of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China)
  • Received:2012-11-28 Online:2013-08-25 Published:2013-08-25
  • Contact: HUANG Xiting

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。

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 words: dual-task paradigm, timing interruption paradigm, position effect, interruption effect, scalar expectancy model of timing