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 ›› 2017, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (7): 897-908.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.00897

• • 上一篇    下一篇

 提取干扰对内隐记忆的影响

 林无忌;  孟迎芳;  林静远   

  1.  (福建师范大学教育学院, 福州 350117)
  • 收稿日期:2016-07-24 出版日期:2017-07-25 发布日期:2017-05-26
  • 通讯作者: 孟迎芳, E-mail: mengyf1978@126.com E-mail:E-mail: mengyf1978@126.com
  • 基金资助:
     福建省自然科学基金计划项目(2014J05038)资助。

 Effects of interference on retrieval process in implicit memory

 LIN Wuji; MENG Yingfang; LIN Jingyuan   

  1.  (College of Education, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou 350117, China)
  • Received:2016-07-24 Online:2017-07-25 Published:2017-05-26
  • Contact: MENG Yingfang, E-mail: mengyf1978@126.com E-mail:E-mail: mengyf1978@126.com
  • Supported by:
     

摘要:  以往研究多认同内隐记忆不会受到干扰的影响, 但主要集中于编码时的干扰不会影响随后的内隐记忆提取成绩, 而对于提取时的干扰是否也不会影响内隐记忆成绩仍存在疑义。该文在实验1采用学习−测验范式, 通过在提取阶段设置同时干扰任务进一步考察提取干扰与内隐记忆的关系, 结果表明提取干扰下并未发现明显的启动效应, 即提取干扰破坏了内隐记忆。为进一步探讨内隐记忆的提取干扰效应是否源于记忆与干扰刺激同时呈现所引起的知觉表征竞争, 实验2改变了记忆与干扰刺激的呈现顺序, 结果表明不论干扰刺激在记忆项目之前或之后呈现, 启动效应均受到影响。相比之下, 提取干扰对再认成绩的影响并不明显(实验3)。上述结果表明, 内隐记忆的提取干扰效应是源于一般认知资源的竞争, 在提取过程中任何能够产生认知资源竞争的变量设置都可能会削减内隐测验中的启动效应。

关键词:  内隐记忆, 外显记忆, 提取干扰, 双任务, 任务转换

Abstract:  A wide range of studies have shown that executing the other secondary task during encoding has little influence on implicit memory (repetition priming). Somewhat surprisingly, relatively few studies discussed the effects of interference on implicit memory during retrieval, which was confirmed as a process distinct from encoding, but also important in memory. Furthermore, an open question remains as to whether the retrieval interference could affect implicit memory? The effect of interference during retrieval was assessed by comparing a divide-attention (DA) condition, on which participants carried out a memory task (lexical decision) and an interference task (even-odd decision) simultaneously or successively, with a full-attention (FA) condition, on which participants performed only the memory task or interference task. Each experiment consisted of five parts: a study phase, a distraction phase, twice FA interference phases, and a retrieval phase, which included above two types attention conditions. Thirty-five undergraduate students participated in Experiment 1, which investigated whether synchronous interference task during retrieval could affect implicit memory. Experiment 2 further examined whether asynchronous interference could also change the priming of implicit retrieval. Thirty participants took part in Experiment 3, which was designed to examine whether such interference could affect explicit memory retrieval. Therefore, it replaced the lexical decision with recognition task based on Experiment 1. Participants were instructed to make response to corresponding items by pressing keyboard, and were told that the memory and interference task were equally important. They were asked to perform both tasks as quickly and accurately as possible. The Reaction Time (RT) and Accuracy data in retrieval phase were recorded, in order to assess priming effects, the effect of interference and interference task costs. The results showed that, first, the repetition priming results (the facilitation or bias in processing of studied items) were quite consistent across Experiment 1 and 2 both on RT and Accuracy. It reflected that priming would be impacted by interference task, whatever the distraction and memory stimulus presented synchronously or asynchronously. Second, In Experiment 3, there was non-significant difference across attention conditions in recognition Accuracy. Third, we followed Lozito and Mulligan’s (2010) method for examining interference task costs. They proposed two measures to obtain distracting task costs for verifying the effects of interference. One of them would work out global costs, which was assessed by comparing performance on the interference task when performed under DA to FA. We found global costs occurred among three experiments, indicating that attention resource competition happened across dual tasks. But significant specific costs, which comparing performance on interference among DA, was only found in Experiment 3, indicating that explicit retrieval would break secondary task performance, whereas, implicit retrieval seemingly has little impact on interference task, but easily influenced by interference task. In conclusion, results from the current study revealed that implicit memory priming could not be regarded as an automatic form of retrieval with ease. And it's necessary for memory retrieval to catch enough cognitive resources. If limited resource was occupied by the other task, implicit retrieval processing would be impacted.

Key words:  implicit memory, explicit memory, interference in retrieval, dual tasks, task switching

中图分类号: