语义大小与刺激数量在非对称性视觉搜索中的作用

doi:10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2024.01.003

心理研究

2024, Vol. 17

Issue (1): 26-33 DOI: 10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2024.01.003

基础研究

本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索

语义大小与刺激数量在非对称性视觉搜索中的作用

沈文意¹, 于战宇¹, 冷英²

1 江苏师范大学教育科学学院,徐州 221116;
2 南通大学教育科学学院,南通 226019

The roles of semantic size and number of stimuli in asymmetric visual search

SHEN Wenyi¹, YU Zhanyu¹, LENG Ying²

1 School of Education Science, Jiangsu Normal University, Xuzhou 221116;
2 School of Education Science, Nantong University, Nantong 226019

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (0)

全文: PDF (1009 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要为了探讨语义与刺激数量在非对称视觉搜索中的作用,研究采用不同语义大小的名词汉字,并指导被试在6和12两种刺激数量中搜索目标刺激。结果发现：（1）当刺激数量为6时,语义较小目标刺激的搜索效率高于语义较大目标刺激;（2）当刺激数量为12时,语义较大目标刺激的搜索效率高于语义较小目标刺激;（3）当搜索的干扰刺激和目标刺激语义大小一致时,数量多且语义较大的干扰刺激搜索效率更低。这表明语义大小与刺激数量对非对称视觉搜索存在交互影响,支持具身认知理论,并扩充了特征整合理论和引导搜索模型。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	沈文意
	于战宇
	冷英

关键词 ：语义大小, 刺激数量, 非对称性视觉搜索

基金资助:教育部人文社会科学青年基金项目（18YJC190031）、江苏省社会科学青年基金项目(18YYC002)、江苏师范大学研究生科研与实践创新项目（2020XKT223）

通讯作者: 于战宇,男,副教授,博士。Email：523506548@qq.com

引用本文:

沈文意, 于战宇, 冷英. 语义大小与刺激数量在非对称性视觉搜索中的作用[J]. 心理研究, 2024, 17(1): 26-33.
SHEN Wenyi, YU Zhanyu, LENG Ying. The roles of semantic size and number of stimuli in asymmetric visual search. Psychological Research, 2024, 17(1): 26-33.

链接本文:

http://xlyj.magtech.com.cn/CN/10.19988/j.cnki.issn.2095-1159.2024.01.003 或 http://xlyj.magtech.com.cn/CN/Y2024/V17/I1/26

[1] 丁锦红, 李杨, 胡荣荣, 严艳梅. (2007). 视觉搜索中空间不对称性的眼动研究.心理科学, 30(1), 116-119.
[2] 方燕红, 张积家. (2011). 图-词干扰范式下的语义效应的理论及其争论.华南师范大学学报(社科版), (2), 120-124.
[3] 方燕红, 张积家. (2013). 语义相似性与类别大小对图-词干扰范式下语义效应的影响.心理学报, 45(5), 523-537.
[4] 贾宁, 蒋高芳. (2016). 道德概念垂直空间隐喻的心理现实性及双向映射. 心理发展与教育, 32(2), 158-165.
[5] 韩振华, 曹立人. (2009). 平行搜索还是系列搜索:视觉搜索机制研究的理论分析.西北师大学报(社会科学版), (5), 129-132.
[6] 胡壮麟. (2010). 认知符号学.外语学刊, (5), 20-25.
[7] 吕绍爱. (2011). 视觉搜索中非对称性的实验研究.社会心理科学, 26(9), 1053-1103.
[8] 李寿欣, 车晓玮, 李彦佼, 王丽, 陈恺盛. (2019). 视觉工作记忆负载类型对注意选择的影响.心理学报, 51(5), 527-542.
[9] 卢凤, 朱传林, 张嫡嫡, 刘电芝. (2020). 具身知觉符号理论视角下的情绪启动效应.心理学探新, 40(4), 296-301.
[10] 马艳云. (2011). 视觉搜索不对称性成因探究.人类工效学, 17(4), 33-37.
[11] 马艳云, 沈模卫, 水仁德. (2001). 数量化维度的特征搜索.心理科学, 24(3), 283-285.
[12] 彭晓玲, 黄丹. (2018). 任务难度对自闭症儿童视觉搜索优势显现的影响.心理科学, 41(2), 498-503.
[13] 任永军. (2004). 空间维度词“大、小”的认知语义分析.聊城大学学报(社会科学版), (5), 30-33.
[14] 唐佩佩, 叶浩生, 杜建政. (2015). 权力概念与空间大小:具身隐喻的视角.心理学报, 47(4), 514-521.
[15] 王琦, 李红, 张丽, 陈雪梅. (2011). 数量表征的符号特异性和符号非特异性.心理科学进展, 19(6), 832-842.
[16] 杨惠兰, 何先友, 赵雪汝, 张维. (2015). 权力的概念隐喻表征:来自大小与颜色隐喻的证据.心理学报, 47(7), 939-949.
[17] 张常青, 王瑞明, 谢久书, 孙逊. (2013). 颜色概念的知觉符号表征与命题符号表征.心理与行为研究, 11(4), 463-469.
[18] 张潮, 刘赛芳, 隋玲, 乔园园. (2019). 宽容概念的大小隐喻表征:双向性及社会性.心理与行为研究, 17(6), 824-830.
[19] 章雷钢, 水仁德. (2012). 语义信息在大小数量表征中的作用.应用心理学, 18(1), 32-39.
[20] 张茂林. (2007). 聋生与听力正常学生在非对称性视觉搜索中的比较研究.中国特殊教育, (2), 19-22.
[21] 周子轩. (2018). 从认知角度看语言符号的范畴与语义的关系.长江丛刊, (9), 55.
[22] Adriaan S., Helen T., & Suliann B. H. (2015). On the automaticity of the evaluative priming effect in the valent/non-valent categorization task.PLoS One, 10(3), e0121564.
[23] Arcangelo U., Mauro E., & Barbara T. (2020). Compatibility between response position and either object typical size or semantic category: SNARC-and MARC-like effects in primary school children.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 189, 104682-104699.
[24] Balota D. A., Cortese M. J., Sergent-Marshall S. D., Spieler D. H., & Yap M. J. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 283-316.
[25] Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A. G., & Buchner A. (2007). G*Power 3.1: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
[26] Fischer M. H., Castel A. D., Dodd M. D., & Pratt J. (2003). Perceiving numbers causes spatial shifts of attention.Nature Neuroscience, 6(6), 555-556.
[27] Gibson, L. C., & Maurer, D. (2016). Development of SNARC and distance effects and their relation to mathematical and visuospatial abilities.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 150, 301-313.
[28] Han, S. W., & Kim, M. S. (2009). Do the contents of working memory capture attention? Yes, but cognitive control matters.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(5), 1292-1302.
[29] Hoedemaker, R. S., & Gordon, P. C. (2014). Embodied language comprehension: Encoding-based and goal-driven processes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 914-929.
[30] Kadosh, R. C., & Walsh, V. (2009). Numerical representation in the parietal lobes: Abstract or not abstract?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(3-4), 313-328.
[31] Kang S. H. K., Yap M. J., Tse C., & Kurby C. A. (2011). Semantic size does not matter: “Bigger” words are not recognized faster.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(6), 1041-1047.
[32] Kiefer M., Sim E. J., Herrnberger B., Grothe J., & Hoenig K. (2008). The sound of concepts: Four markers for a link between auditory and conceptual brain systems.Journal of Neuroscience, 28(47), 12224-12230.
[33] Klinger M. R., Burton P. C., & Pitts G. S. (2000). Mechanisms of unconscious priming: i. response competition, not spreading activation.Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory & Cognition, 26(2), 441-455.
[34] Lawrence, W., & Barsalou. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems.Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577-660.
[35] Mitchell R. O., Rashid H., Dawood F., & Alkhalidi A. (2013). Hajj crowd management and navigation system: People tracking and location-based services via integrated mobile and RFID systems. International Conference on Computer Applications Technology. IEEE.
[36] O’Riordan, M., & Plaisted, K. (2001). Enhanced discrimination in autism.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A(4), 961-979.
[37] Rubinsten, O., & Henik, A. (2002). Is an ant larger than a lion?Acta Psychologica, 111(1), 141-154.
[38] Seegelke, C., & Wühr, P. (2018). Compatibility between object size and response side in grasping: The left hand prefers smaller objects, the right hand prefers larger objects.PeerJ, 6e6026.
[39] Sereno M. E.(1993). Neural computation of pattern motion. Neural computation of pattern motion: Modeling stages of motion analysis in the primate visual cortex. MIT Press.
[40] Sereno, S. C., O’Donnell, P. J. & Sereno, M. E. (2009). Size matters: Bigger is faster.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(6), 1115-1122.
[41] Speer N. K., Reynolds J. R., Swallow K. M., & Zacks J. M. (2009). Reading stories activates neural representations of visual and motor experiences.Psychological Science, 20(8), 989-999.
[42] Tettamanti M., Buccino G., Saccuman M. C., Gallese V., Danna M., & Scifo P., et al. (2005). Listening to action-related sentences activates fronto-parietal motor circuits.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(2), 273-281.
[43] Treccani B., Mulatti C., Sulpizio S., & Job R. (2019). Does perceptual simulation explain spatial effects in word categorization?Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1-11.
[44] Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97-136.
[45] Treisman, A., & Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries.Psychological Review, 95(1), 15-48.
[46] Treisman, A., & Souther, J. (1985). Search asymmetry: A diagnostic for pre-attentive processing of separable features.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114(3), 285-310.
[47] Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 483-488.
[48] Walther, D., & Koch, C. (2006). Modeling attention to salient proto-objects.Neural Networks(9), 1395-1407.
[49] Wei, W., & Cook, A. E. (2016). Semantic size and contextual congruency effects during reading: Evidence from eye movements.Discourse Processes, 53(5-6), 415-429.
[50] Winter B., Matlock T., Shaki S., & Fischer M. H. (2015). Mental number space in three dimensions.Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 57, 209-219.
[51] Wolfe J. M., Cave K. R., & Franzel S. L. (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(3), 419-433.
[52] Wolfe, J. M., & Gancarz, G. (1997). Guided Search 3.0. In Basic and clinical applications of vision science (pp.189-192).Dordrecht: Springer.
[53] Wolfe, J. M. (2012). Guided search 4.0: current progress with a model of visual search.Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems, 1(3), 99-119.
[54] Wühr, P., & Seegelke, C. (2018). Compatibility between physical stimulus size and left-right responses: Small is left and large is right.Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 17-28.
[55] Yao B., Belin P., & Scheepers C. (2011). Silent reading of direct versus indirect speech activates voice-selective areas in the auditory cortex.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 23(10), 3146-3152.
[56] Yao B., Belin P., & Scheepers C. (2012). Brain 'talks over’ boring quotes: Top-down activation of voice-selective areas while listening to monotonous direct speech quotations.Neuroimage, 60(3), 1832-1842.
[57] Yao B., Vasiljevic M., Weick M., Sereno M. E., O’Donnell P. J., & Sereno S. C. (2013). Semantic size of abstract concepts: It gets emotional when you can’t see it.PLoS One, 8(9), e75000.
[58] Yu, Z. Y., & Wang, L. J. (2017). Do physical properties affect enactment effect? The regulatory function of item familiarity.The American Journal of Psychology, 130(3), 315-327.
[59] Zhang, Y., & Onyper, S. (2020). Visual search asymmetry depends on target-distractor feature similarity: Is the asymmetry simply a result of distractor rejection speed?Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(4), 80-97.