汉语图画命名过程的年老化机制：非选择性抑制能力的影响 *

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.01079

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

采用图画-词汇干扰任务考察和比较了青年人和老年人在汉语口语词汇产生中的干扰词频效应, 以及非选择性抑制能力对两组人群干扰词频效应和图画命名潜伏期的影响。结果发现：无关干扰词的词频影响了青年人的图画命名过程, 出现了干扰词频效应, 这一效应更可能发生在反应排除阶段, 且不受非选择性抑制能力的影响; 相比而言, 老年人中未出现干扰词频效应, 这可能是由于老年人的音韵表征衰退导致其不能利用干扰词的词频信息, 支持了口语产生认知年老化的传输不足假设。非选择性抑制能力影响了老年人的图画-词汇干扰任务中图画命名的潜伏期, 非选择性抑制能力减弱, 图画命名时间延长, 表明一般性认知能力的衰退影响了语言产生过程。

关键词: 口语产生年老化, 图画-词汇干扰任务, 干扰词频效应, 词频效应, 非选择性抑制能力

Abstract:

Older speakers frequently report more linguistic dysfluencies, verbose and even anomia in speech production than young speakers. The transmission deficit hypothesis assumes that normal aging reduces the activation transmission between the meaning and the word form of target words, which results in more failures. By contrast, the inhibition hypothesis assumes that the inhibitive ability about irrelevant information in older adults is decreased in comparison with young adults, thus more word retrieval failures in the old than in young adults. On the other hand, semantic interference effect and distractor word frequency effect have been observed in picture-word interference (PWI) task. Researchers interpreted the two effects via the competitive (i.e., lexical selection competition during lemma retrieval) and the non-competitive hypotheses (i.e., response exclusion hypothesis). The present study aims to investigate the influence of non-selective inhibition ability in picture naming by examining distractor frequency effect in young and older native Chinese speakers.

In the PWI task, participants were instructed to name pictures as quickly and accurately while ignoring distractor words. In experiment 1, we manipulated age (young vs. older), the frequency of distractor words (High vs. Low), and the onset interval between distractors and target pictures (-100 ms, 0 ms, and 100 ms). In experiment 2, we manipulated age, the frequency of distractor words, and the frequency of target names (High, Medium, and Low). The non-selective inhibition ability was measured by stop-signal task in both groups. Distractors and pictures were presented simultaneously.

Results indicated a target name frequency effect in both young and older groups. Importantly, we found distractor word frequency effects in young adults, but non in older adults. The distractor frequency effect in older adults was absent due to weaker phonological activation of distractor words, and thus support the transmission deficit hypothesis. The correlations between the ability of non-selection inhibition and distractor frequency effect were not significant in both groups, indicating this kind of ability did not affect the magnitude of distractor frequency effect. However, the ability of non-selection inhibition positively correlated with mean naming latencies only in older adults, indicating that the decrease of non-selective inhibition ability influences naming latencies in older adults, while the absence in the young due to the small variations of naming latencies, which need to be investigated further by covering a wide age range (18~80 years).

Key words: aging of speech production, picture-word interference task, distractor frequency effect, word frequency effect, non-selective inhibition

中图分类号:

B842

杨群, 张清芳. (2019). 汉语图画命名过程的年老化机制：非选择性抑制能力的影响 ^*. 心理学报, 51(10), 1079-1090.

YANG Qun, ZHANG Qingfang. (2019). Aging effect of picture naming in Chinese: The influence of the non-selective inhibition ability. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(10), 1079-1090.

图/表 5

参考文献 48

[1]	Burke D. M., MacKay D. G., Worthley J. S., & Wade E . ( 1991). On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults? Journal of Memory and Language, 30( 5), 542-579.
[2]	Burke, D. M., & Shafto, M. A . ( 2008). Aging and language production. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13( 1), 21-24.
[3]	Castro, N., & James, L. E . ( 2014). Differences between young and older adults’ spoken language production in descriptions of negative versus neutral pictures, Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 21( 2), 222-238.
[4]	Cleary A. M., Konkel K. E., Nomi J. S., & McCabe D. P . ( 2010). Odor recognition without identification. Memory & Cognition, 38( 4), 452-460.
[5]	Cohen, J. ( 1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[6]	Cutting, J. C., & Ferreira, V. S . ( 1999). Semantic and phonological information flow in the production lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25( 2), 318-344.
[7]	Dell'Acqua R., Sessa P., Peressotti F., Mulatti C., Navarrete E., & Grainger J . ( 2010). ERP evidence for ultra-fast semantic processing in the picture-word interference paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 1( 177).
[8]	Dhooge E., de Baene W., & Hartsuiker R. J . ( 2013). A late locus of the distractor frequency effect in picture-word interference: Evidence from event-related potentials. Brain and Language, 124( 3), 232-237.
[9]	Dhooge, E., & Hartsuiker, R. J . ( 2010). The distractor frequency effect in picture-word interference: Evidence for response exclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36( 4), 878-891.
[10]	Duncan, J. ( 2004). Selective attention in distributed brain areas. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of attention (pp. 105-113). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
[11]	Fieder N., Nickels L., & Biedermann B . ( 2014). Representation and processing of mass and count nouns: a review. Frontiers in Psychology, 5( 589).
[12]	Finkbeiner, M., & Caramazza , A. ( 2006). Now you see it, now you don't: On turning semantic interference into facilitation in a Stroop-like task. Cortex, 42( 6), 790-796.
[13]	Forstmann B. U., Jahfari S., Scholte H. S., Wolfensteller U., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., & Ridderinkhof K. R . ( 2008). Function and structure of the right inferior frontal cortex predict individual differences in response inhibition: A model-based approach. Journal of Neuroscience, 28( 39), 9790-9796.
[14]	Glaser, W. R., & Düngelhoff, F. J . ( 1984). The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10( 5), 640-654.
[15]	He, J. Y., & Zhang, Q. F . ( 2017). The temporal courses of word frequency effect and syllable frequency effect of Chinese handwritten production in the old: An ERP study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49( 12), 1483-1493.
	[ 何洁莹, 张清芳 . ( 2017). 老年人书写产生中词汇频率和音节频率效应的时间进程:ERP研究. 心理学报, 49( 12), 1483-1493.]
[16]	Jescheniak, J. D., & Levelt, W. J. M . ( 1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20( 4), 824-843.
[17]	Jescheniak J. D., Meyer A. S ., & Levelt, W. J. M. ( 2003). Specific-word frequency is not all that counts in speech production: Comments on Caramazza, Costa, et al. (2001) and new experimental data. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29( 3), 432-438.
[18]	Kandel S., Álvarez C., & Vallée N . ( 2006). Syllables as processing units in handwriting production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32( 1), 18-31.
[19]	Logan G. D. ( 1994). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: a users’ guide to the stop signal paradigm. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr, Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp.189-239). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
[20]	MacKay, D. G., & Abrams, L. ( 1998). Age-linked declines in retrieving orthographic knowledge: empirical, practical, and theoretical implications. Psychology and Ageing, 13( 4), 647-662.
[21]	MacKay D. G., Abrams L., & Pedroza M. J . ( 1999). Aging on the input versus output side: Theoretical implications of age-linked asymmetries between detecting versus retrieving orthographic information. Psychology and Aging, 14( 1), 3-17.
[22]	Mahon B. Z., Costa A., Peterson R., Vargas K. A., & Caramazza A . ( 2007). Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33( 3), 503-535.
[23]	Miozzo, M., & Caramazza A. ( 2003). When more is less: a counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132( 2), 228-252.
[24]	Mortensen L., Meyer A. S., & Humphreys G. W . ( 2006). Age-related effects on speech production: A review. Language and Cognition. Process. 21( 1-3), 238-290.
[25]	Nigg, J. T . ( 2000). On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: Views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 12 6(2), 220-246.
[26]	Peng, H. M., & Mao, X. F . ( 2018). Will the deficit in inhibition increase the rates of tip-of-the-tongue among the elderly? Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50( 10), 1142-1150.
	[ 彭华茂, 毛晓飞 . ( 2018). 抑制对老年人舌尖现象的影响. 心理学报, 50( 10), 1142-1150.
[27]	Protopapas A., Archonti A., & Skaloumbakas C . ( 2007). Reading ability is negatively related to Stroop interference. Cognitive Psychology, 54, 251-282.
[28]	Qu Q., Zhang Q., & Damian M. F . ( 2016). Tracking the Time Course of Lexical Access in Orthographic Production: An Event-Related Potential Study of Word Frequency Effects in Written Picture Naming, Brain and Language, 159, 118-126.
[29]	Roelofs, A. ( 2005). From Popper to Lakatos: A case for cumulative computational modeling. In A. Cutler (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones ( pp. 313-330). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
[30]	Roelofs A., Piai V., & Schriefers H . ( 2011). Selective attention and distractor frequency in naming performance: Comment on Dhooge and Hartsuiker (2010). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37( 4), 1032-1038.
[31]	Schaie, K. W . ( 2000). The impact of longitudinal studies on understanding development from young adulthood to old age. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24( 3), 257-266.
[32]	Schriefers H., Meyer A. S ., & Levelt, W. J. M. ( 1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29( 1), 86-102.
[33]	Shao Z., Meyer A. S., & Roelofs A . ( 2013). Selective and nonselective inhibition of competitors in picture naming. Memory & cognition, 41( 8), 1200-1211.
[34]	Snyder, P., & Lawson, S. ( 1993). Evaluating results using corrected and uncorrected effect size estimates. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 334-349.
[35]	Sörös P., Bose A., Sokoloff L. G., Graham S. J., & Stuss D. T . ( 2011). Age-related changes in the functional neuroanatomy of overt speech production. Neurobiology of Aging, 32( 8), 1505-513.
[36]	Spaulding, T. J . ( 2010). Investigating mechanisms of suppression in preschool children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53( 3), 725-738.
[37]	Starreveld P. A., & la Heij, W. ( 1995). Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation, and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21( 3), 686-698.
[38]	Starreveld, P. A., & la Heij, W. ( 1996). Time-course analysis of semantic and orthographic context effects in picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22( 4), 896-918.
[39]	Stemberger, J. P., & Macwhinney, B. ( 1986) Form-oriented inflectional errors in language processing. Cognitive Psychology, 18( 3), 329-354.
[40]	Sternberg, S. ( 1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276-315.
[41]	Verbruggen F., Logan G. D., & Stevens M. A . ( 2008). STOP-IT: Windows executable software for the stop-signal paradigm. Behavior Research Methods, 40( 2), 479-483.
[42]	Yang, Q., & Zhang, Q. F . ( 2015). Aging of word frequency, syllable frequency and phonological facilitation effects in Chinese speech production. Journal of Psychological Science, 38( 6), 1303-1310.
	[ 杨群, 张清芳 . ( 2015). 口语产生中词频效应, 音节频率效应和语音促进效应的认知年老化. 心理科学, 38( 6), 1303-1310.]
[43]	Zhang, Q. F., & Wang, C. ( 2014). Syllable frequency and word frequency effects in spoken and written word production in a non-alphabetic script. Frontiers in Psychology. 5, 120.
[44]	Zhang, Q. F. & Yang, Y. F . ( 2003). The lexical access theory in speech production. Advances in Psychological Science, 11, 6-11.
	[ 张清芳, 杨玉芳 . ( 2003). 言语产生中的词汇通达理论. 心理科学进展, 11, 6-11.]
[45]	Zhang Q. F., Zhu X. B., & Damian M. F . ( 2018). Phonological activation of category coordinates in spoken word production: Evidence for cascaded processing in English but not in Mandarin. Applied Psycholinguistics, 39( 5), 835-860.
[46]	Zheng H. M., Wen Z. L., & Wu Y . ( 2011). The appropriate effect sizes and their calculations in psychological research. Advances in Psychological Science, 19( 12), 1868-1878.
	[ 郑昊敏, 温忠麟, 吴艳 . ( 2011). 心理学常用效应量的选用与分析. 心理科学进展, 19( 12), 1868-1878.]
[47]	Zhu X. B., Damian M. F., & Zhang Q. F . ( 2015). Seriality of semantic and phonological processes during overt speech in Mandarin as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Brain and language, 144, 16-25.
[48]	Zhu X. B., Zhang Q. F., & Damian M. F . ( 2016). Additivity of semantic and phonological effects: evidence from speech production in mandarin. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69( 11), 2285-2304.

SOA	干扰字字频		效应量 (低频-高频)	Cohen d
SOA	低词频	高词频	效应量 (低频-高频)	Cohen d
青年人
-100	702 (64)	691 (57)	11^*	0.18
0	712 (85)	691 (74)	21^**	0.38
100	588 (70)	580 (60)	8	0.12
老年人
-100	847 (128)	842 (121)	5	0.04
0	827 (114)	825 (118)	2	0.02
100	725 (121)	734 (106)	-9	0.08

SOA	干扰字字频		效应量 (低频-高频)	Cohen d
SOA	低词频	高词频	效应量 (低频-高频)	Cohen d
青年人
-100	702 (64)	691 (57)	11^*	0.18
0	712 (85)	691 (74)	21^**	0.38
100	588 (70)	580 (60)	8	0.12
老年人
-100	847 (128)	842 (121)	5	0.04
0	827 (114)	825 (118)	2	0.02
100	725 (121)	734 (106)	-9	0.08

目标词词频	干扰字字频		效应量 (低频-高频)	Cohen d
目标词词频	低词频	高词频	效应量 (低频-高频)	Cohen d
青年人
低	752 (98)	742 (96)	10^*	0.10
中	762 (99)	750 (91)	12	0.13
高	731 (99)	703 (92)	28^***	0.29
老年人
低	854 (86)	841 (73)	13	0.16
中	856 (87)	857 (76)	-1	0.01
高	812 (93)	809 (79)	3	0.03

目标词词频	干扰字字频		效应量 (低频-高频)	Cohen d
目标词词频	低词频	高词频	效应量 (低频-高频)	Cohen d
青年人
低	752 (98)	742 (96)	10^*	0.10
中	762 (99)	750 (91)	12	0.13
高	731 (99)	703 (92)	28^***	0.29
老年人
低	854 (86)	841 (73)	13	0.16
中	856 (87)	857 (76)	-1	0.01
高	812 (93)	809 (79)	3	0.03

变异来源	F		MSE	p	η_p²
目标词词频	F₁(2, 122)	41.03	60583	<0.001	0.402
	F₂(2, 114)	3.71	11751	0.061	0.061
干扰词频	F₁(1, 61)	10.54	10467	0.002	0.147
	F₂(1, 114)	9.506	817	0.003	0.077
年龄	F₁(1, 61)	21.38	40678	<0.001	0.260
	F₂(1, 114)	50.30	11751	<0.001	0.306
年龄×干扰词频	F₁(1, 61)	3.49	993	0.067	0.054
	F₂(1, 114)	3.59	817	0.061	0.031
年龄×干扰词频效应×目标图词频	F₁(1, 61)	4.87	610	0.031	0.074
年龄×干扰词频效应×目标图词频	F₂(2, 114)	1.36	817	0.262	0.023