Subjects: Psychology >> Developmental Psychology submitted time 2023-03-28 Cooperative journals: 《心理科学进展》
Abstract： Divided attention during encoding has long been known to impair later memory performance due to limited attentional resources. However, Swallow and Jiang (2010) reported a surprising variation of this phenomenon using a secondary target detection task. The appearance of a secondary target -- a behaviorally relevant, attentionally demanding stimulus, was associated with enhanced memory for concurrent information, an effect labeled the Attentional Boost Effect (ABE). A dual-task interaction model was proposed to account for the ABE. This model states that the ABE reflects a temporal selective attention mechanism triggered by target-detection, which then facilitates early perceptual processing of the target as well as the background stimulus that coincides with it. However, several following studies do not support this model. So we suppose that the enhanced perceptual encoding might not be the only reason for the ABE; whereas a suppression effect due to distractor rejection might also contribute to the ABE; and the ABE might also arise from the later phase other than the early encoding phase. Therefore, further research is needed to explore all possible mechanisms and hereby modify the theoretical model for the ABE.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： Studies have shown that choline is a substance that is closely related to memory. Previous studies focused on the effect of cholinergic drugs on explicit memory, and those results revealed that explicit memory is sensitive to most cholinergic drugs. However, relatively few studies have discussed the effect of cholinergic drugs on implicit memory. Furthermore, whether the effect of cholinergic drugs on implicit memory is consistent with explicit memory is still uncertain.The effect of cholinergic drugs on memory was investigated by drawing a comparison between the participants with nicotine condition and those without. We used lexical decision and lexical recognition tasks to test implicit and explicit memory, respectively. In experiment 1, 30 subjects participated in two occasions, 2 days apart. They participated once in memory tasks after receiving 12 mg/ml body weight of nicotine and once after receiving 0 mg/ml placebo. Experiment 2 examined whether receiving treatment before encoding or before the retrieval phase would moderate the cholinergic effect in explicit and implicit memory. In experiment 2, 19 subjects participated in two experimental occasions, 2 days apart, as follows: after receiving 12 mg/ml body weight of nicotine before the encoding phase; after receiving nicotine before the retrieval phase. In addition, we adopted event-related potential (ERP) technology to observe the affected ERPs. Participants were instructed to response to corresponding items by pressing keyboard. The Reaction Time and Accuracy data on retrieval phase of the two memory tasks were recorded and analyzed.Implicit and explicit memory performance declined under nicotine condition in both experiments. It reflected that receiving nicotine not only impacted explicit memory but also implicit memory. Furthermore, nicotine effects are moderated by the level of processing at the encoding phase. Such impact only occurred on the deep processing level. Moreover, memory retrieval after receiving nicotine was affected. These effects were more remarkable on implicit memory retrieval than on explicit memory. The results of ERP data also showed that related ERPs of memory were affected by nicotine.In conclusion, results from the current study revealed that effects of cholinergic drugs were similar on implicit and explicit memory. The rest of the segregated results might have been due to the discrepancy of memory tasks rather than the differences in physiological mechanisms of the two memory types. Implicit memory and explicit memory might not belong to two extremely independent memory systems, because there are some covariant effects existing between them.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： The attentional boost effect (ABE) was first discovered by Swallow in 2010, which means that when subjects perform coding and target detection tasks simultaneously, the memory performance of background information presented in target items is better than those presented in distracted items. Previous studies believe that this promotion effect is mainly due to the fact that target detection enhances the perceptual processing of background information; however, many experimental results contrary to this perceptual processing enhancement hypothesis indicate that “target detection does not necessarily promote the perceptual processing of background information.”Can target detection promote semantic processing? If so, why is ABE not found in the implicit test task of concepts that rely on semantic information? We speculate that this may be related to the encoding tasks used in these experiments. In reading words aloud, subjects may only perform perceptual coding but not conceptual coding. If the time-selective attention mechanism promotes cognitive processing simultaneously with target detection, ABE should appear in implicit conceptual tests when conceptual processing of words is performed simultaneously with target detection.This study adopts the classic ABE paradigm of Swallow and Jiang ( 2010) and further controls the different processing types of memory materials in the encoding stage to explore whether target detection promotes semantic processing of simultaneously presented background materials. In Experiment 1, lexical materials were used, and subjects were asked to read words aloud while performing target detection tasks in the encoding stage. Perceptual (true and false word judgment) and conceptual priming tests (semantic judgment) were then completed. The experimental design was a 2 × 2 in-subject design. Results showed that the ABE effect only appeared under the perceptual priming test condition, and the priming amount under the target condition was significantly greater than those under the distraction condition, while under the conceptual condition, the priming amounts under the target and distraction conditions were not significantly different. Based on Experiment 1, Experiments 2 and 3 used vocabulary and picture materials, respectively, to further control the processing types of memory materials in the coding stage, including perceptual (vocabulary structure judgment, presence of white in pictures) and semantic coding (vocabulary, picture pleasure judgment). A conceptual implicit test (semantic judgment) was then conducted to investigate whether the two coding methods have different effects on ABE in subsequent conceptual implicit tests to verify whether target detection promotes semantic processing of background materials presented simultaneously. The experimental design was a 2 × 2 in-subject design. Experiments 2 and 3 revealed that the ABE effect only appeared under the condition of semantic encoding but not under the condition of perceptual encoding.Results showed that in the dual-task processing, target detection can promote not only the perceptual processing of background information but also the semantic processing of background information. The promotion effect of target detection on background information is related to the processing of the background information. If the encoding process of background information under target detection is consistent with the extraction process that relies on in subsequent implicit tests, ABE will be generated.
Subjects: Psychology >> Social Psychology submitted time 2023-03-27 Cooperative journals: 《心理学报》
Abstract： The attentional boost effect (ABE) represents a phenomenon in which, in some dual tasks, increasing attention to a brief target in a detection task can enhance memory for unrelated items that are presented at the same time (relative to distractor-paired items). The ABE was different from the dual-task interference phenomenon found in previous studies, and to explain the ABE, Swallow and Jiang proposed a dual-task interaction model. This model claimed that the ABE was mainly triggered by the decision that an item is a target, which can lead to the transient but widespread perceptual enhancement of information by inducing a temporal selection mechanism. However, in ABE studies, the target detection tasks always coincide with Go responses that require action. One recent study found that action can enhance memory for unrelated items, which was called action-induced memory enhancement (AIME). Therefore, it is unclear whether the ABE is induced by the action or the target decision. To address this question, in the present study, the verbal paradigm of the ABE was modified and designed with a NoGo-target detection condition (NoGo-targets vs. Go-distractors) to separate target items from action responses, and a traditional Go-target detection condition (Go-targets vs. NoGo-distractors) was used for comparison. If the ABE is mainly triggered by the target decision, then NoGo-target detection could trigger the cross-conditional ABE (relative to NoGo-distractor items). In contrast, if the ABE is mainly triggered by the action, the NoGo-target items will not have any memory advantage. The present study included four experiments, and 137 valid data points were collected, including 33 valid data points in Experiment 1, 35 valid data points in Experiment 2, 36 valid data points in Experiment 3, and 33 valid data points in Experiment 4. The only difference among the four experiments was that the ratio of target-to-distractor items was different during the dual-task encoding phase. In Experiment 1, the ratio of target-to-distractor items was the same as that in the classic ABE verbal paradigm (1:5) to explore the role of AIME in the ABE. In Experiments 2 and 3, the ratio of target-to-distractor items was set to 1:1 and 1:2 to explore the role of the AIME and target decision in the ABE with different action frequencies. In Experiment 4, blank words (words without detection stimuli) were added in the detection phase to separate the action frequency (2/3) from the target frequency (relative to distractors; Go-targets: 4/5; NoGo-targets: 1/5) and verify the dynamic trade-off model of the target decision and action reaction proposed in the present study. Each experiment contained two conditions, namely, NoGo-target detection and Go-target detection, and each condition consisted of two phases, namely, a dual-task encoding phase and a recognition phase. During the dual-task encoding phase, a series of memory stimuli (words) and detection stimuli (coloured circles presented, 1 cm below the words) were presented at the same time, and the participants were asked to simultaneously perform the memory and detection tasks. During the recognition phase, only memory stimuli were presented, and the participants were required to judge the stimuli as old or new. The only difference between the NoGo-target condition and Go-target condition was reflected in the instructions for the detection task: in the Go-target condition, the participants were asked to press the space bar as quickly as possible when they saw the target circles (e.g., a red circle with Go-response) but did not need to respond when they saw other-coloured circles (i.e., distractor circles with NoGo-responses); in contrast, in the NoGo-target condition, the participants were required to press the space bar as quickly as possible for all circles (i.e., distractor circles with Go-responses) but withhold a button press for the target circle (e.g., a red circle with NoGo-response). The results showed that NoGo-target detection enhanced memory performance for target items (relative to Go-distractor/NoGo-distractor items) in the four experiments. First, it was found that the NoGo-target items were better remembered than the Go-distractor items and NoGo-distractor items in Experiment 1 (1:5 ratio), and performance with the Go-distractor items was worse than that with the NoGo-distractor items, showing that the ABE was triggered by the target decision without an action response and that actions had inhibitory effects at high frequencies. Second, it was found that the NoGo-target items were better recognized than the NoGo-distractor items but not better than the Go-distractor items in Experiment 2 (1:1 ratio), and the AIME was found with the Go-distractor items, showing that the boosting effect from the target decision on background information is robust, but the AIME affected the generation of the ABE within the NoGo-target condition. Third, it was found that NoGo-target items were better remembered than Go-distractor items and NoGo-distractor items in Experiment 3 (1:2 ratio), and there was no difference in memory performance between the Go-distractor items and the NoGo-distractor items, indicating that action frequency affected the generation of the ABE by adjusting the AIME. Finally, it was found that at 2/3 of the action frequency, both the Go-target detection with high target frequency and the NoGo-target detection with low target frequency triggered the ABE, and the memory performance was similar between the Go-distractor items and the NoGo-distractor items, indicating again that action frequency affected the generation of the ABE by adjusting the AIME, verifying the hypothesis of the dynamic trade-off model. Overall, the results of all four experiments found memory advantages with the NoGo-target items, but the generation of the ABE was affected by the frequency of action responses, indicating that the boosting effect from the target decision is robust in the ABE, and the action and the target decision work together in the generation of the ABE. Accordingly, we propose the dynamic trade-off model, arguing that the AIME at different frequencies dynamically trade-off against the boosting effect of target decisions and thus influence the ABE.
Subjects: Psychology >> Cognitive Psychology submitted time 2022-04-26
Abstract：
The attentional boost effect (ABE) represents a phenomenon in which, in some dual tasks, increasing attention to a brief target in a detection task can enhance memory for unrelated items that are presented at the same time (relative to distractor-paired items). The ABE was different from the dual-task interference phenomenon found in previous studies, and to explain the ABE, Swallow and Jiang (2013) proposed a dual-task interaction model. This model claimed that the ABE was mainly triggered by the decision that an item is a target, which can lead to the transient but widespread perceptual enhancement of information by inducing a temporal selection mechanism. However, in ABE studies, the target detection tasks always coincide with Go responses that require action. One recent study found that action can enhance memory for unrelated items, which was called action-induced memory enhancement (AIME; Yebra et al., 2019). Therefore, it is unclear whether the ABE is induced by the action or the target decision. To address this question, in the present study, inspired by Makovski et al. (2013), the verbal paradigm of the ABE was modified (Mulligan et al., 2014) and designed with a NoGo-target detection condition (NoGo-targets vs. Go-distractors) to separate target items from action responses, and a traditional Go-target detection condition (Go-targets vs. NoGo-distractors) was used for comparison. If the ABE is mainly triggered by the target decision, then NoGo-target detection could trigger the cross-conditional ABE (relative to NoGo-distractor items). In contrast, if the ABE is mainly triggered by the action, the NoGo-target items will not have any memory advantage.
The present study included four experiments, and 137 valid data points were collected, including 33 valid data points in Experiment 1, 35 valid data points in Experiment 2, 36 valid data points in Experiment 3, and 33 valid data points in Experiment 4. The only difference among the four experiments was that the ratio of target-to-distractor items was different during the dual-task encoding phase. In Experiment 1, the ratio of target-to-distractor items was the same as that in the classic ABE verbal paradigm (1:5) to explore the role of AIME in the ABE. In Experiments 2 and 3, the ratio of target-to-distractor items was set to 1:1 and 1:2 to explore the role of the AIME and target decision in the ABE with different action frequencies. In Experiment 4, blank words (words without detection stimuli) were added in the detection phase to separate the action frequency (2/3) from the target frequency (relative to distractors; Go-targets: 4/5; NoGo-targets: 1/5) and verify the dynamic trade-off model of the target decision and action reaction proposed in the present study. Each experiment contained two conditions, namely, NoGo-target detection and Go-target detection, and each condition consisted of two phases, namely, a dual-task encoding phase and a recognition phase. During the dual-task encoding phase, a series of memory stimuli (words) and detection stimuli (coloured circles presented, 1 cm below the words) were presented at the same time, and the participants were asked to simultaneously perform the memory and detection tasks. During the recognition phase, only memory stimuli were presented, and the participants were required to judge the stimuli as old or new. The only difference between the NoGo-target condition and Go-target condition was reflected in the instructions for the detection task: in the Go-target condition, the participants were asked to press the space bar as quickly as possible when they saw the target circles (e.g., a red circle with Go-response) but did not need to respond when they saw other-coloured circles (i.e., distractor circles with NoGo-responses); in contrast, in the NoGo-target condition, the participants were required to press the space bar as quickly as possible for all circles (i.e., distractor circles with Go-responses) but withhold a button press for the target circle (e.g., a red circle with NoGo-response).
The results showed that NoGo-target detection enhanced memory performance for target items (relative to Go-distractor/NoGo-distractor items) in the four experiments. First, it was found that the NoGo-target items were better remembered than the Go-distractor items and NoGo-distractor items in Experiment 1 (1:5 ratio), and performance with the Go-distractor items was worse than that with the NoGo-distractor items, showing that the ABE was triggered by the target decision without an action response and that actions had inhibitory effects at high frequencies. Second, it was found that the NoGo-target items were better recognized than the NoGo-distractor items but not better than the Go-distractor items in Experiment 2 (1:1 ratio), and the AIME was found with the Go-distractor items, showing that the boosting effect from the target decision on background information is robust, but the AIME affected the generation of the ABE within the NoGo-target condition. Third, it was found that NoGo-target items were better remembered than Go-distractor items and NoGo-distractor items in Experiment 3 (1:2 ratio), and there was no difference in memory performance between the Go-distractor items and the NoGo-distractor items, indicating that action frequency affected the generation of the ABE by adjusting the AIME. Finally, it was found that at 2/3 of the action frequency, both the Go-target detection with high target frequency and the NoGo-target detection with low target frequency triggered the ABE, and the memory performance was similar between the Go-distractor items and the NoGo-distractor items, indicating again that action frequency affected the generation of the ABE by adjusting the AIME, verifying the hypothesis of the dynamic trade-off model.
Overall, the results of all four experiments found memory advantages with the NoGo-target items, but the generation of the ABE was affected by the frequency of action responses, indicating that the boosting effect from the target decision is robust in the ABE, and the action and the target decision work together in the generation of the ABE. Accordingly, we propose the dynamic trade-off model, arguing that the AIME at different frequencies dynamically trade-off against the boosting effect of target decisions and thus influence the ABE.
Peer Review Status:
Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Cognitive Psychology submitted time 2021-01-24
Abstract： The Attentional Boost Effect (ABE) was first discovered by Swallow in 2010, which means that when subjects perform coding tasks and target detection tasks simultaneously, the memory performance of background information presented in target items is better than that presented in distracted items. Previous studies believe that this promotion effect is mainly due to the fact that target detection enhances the perceptual processing of background information, but many experimental results contrary to this perceptual processing enhancement hypothesis are also found, indicating that "target detection does not necessarily only promote the perceptual processing of background information". Can target detection promote semantic processing? If so, why is ABE not found in the implicit test task of concepts that relies on semantic information? We speculate that this may be related to the encoding tasks used in these experiments. Under the condition of reading words aloud, the subjects may only perform perceptual coding but not conceptual coding. If the time selective attention mechanism promotes cognitive processing simultaneously with target detection, ABE should appear in the following implicit conceptual tests when conceptual processing of words is performed simultaneously with target detection. This study will adopt Swallow and Jiang (2010) classic ABE paradigm, and further control the different processing types of memory materials in the encoding stage to explore whether target detection will promote the semantic processing of simultaneously presented background materials. In experiment one, lexical materials are used, and subjects are asked to read aloud words while performing target detection tasks in the encoding stage. Then, a perceptual priming test (true and false word judgment) and a conceptual priming test (semantic judgment) are completed. The experimental design is a 2*2 in-subject design. The results show that ABE effect only appears under the perceptual priming test condition, the priming amount under the target condition is significantly greater than that under the distraction condition, while under the conceptual condition, the priming amounts under the target condition and the distraction condition are not significantly different. On the basis of experiment one, experiments two and three will use vocabulary and picture materials respectively to further control the processing types of memory materials in the coding stage, including perceptual coding (vocabulary structure judgment, presence of white in pictures) and semantic coding (vocabulary, picture pleasure judgment). Then, only conceptual implicit test (semantic judgment) will be conducted to investigate whether the two coding methods will have different effects on ABE in subsequent conceptual implicit tests to verify whether target detection will promote semantic processing of background materials presented at the same time. The experimental designs are 2*2 in-subject designs. Both experiments two and three find that ABE effect only appears under the condition of semantic encoding, but not under the condition of perceptual encoding. The results show that in the process of dual task processing, target detection can not only promote the perceptual processing of background information, but also promote the semantic processing of background information. The promotion effect of target detection on background information is related to the processing of background information itself. Attention promotion is based on the existing coding of background information. In addition, the study also found that vocabulary and pictures have relative consistency in attention promotion effect.
Peer Review Status:Awaiting Review
Subjects: Psychology >> Cognitive Psychology submitted time 2020-02-22
Abstract： According to traditional automation theory, an automatic process should be "purely unconscious", independent of limited attention resources, and executed at the same time as other processing tasks without interference. Implicit memory is considered to be a tool that provides unconscious and automatic cognitive processes and that is not be affected by any type of attention resource. Memory includes two important links: coding and retrieval. Coding is mainly responsible for the preliminary processing of information and the generation of memory traces. Retrieval promotes or suppresses the connection of these memory representations after coding. Previous studies have mostly discussed the effect of interference on implicit memory from the point of view of coding and considered that implicit memory tests are immune to coding interference. However, there are doubts about whether the interference in the retrieval stage will affect the implicit memory, and more importantly, it is not known whether this difference is caused by the different types of memory tests. Because of the intersection between the types of implicit memory tests, this study involves four experiments. The effects of retrieval interference on an identification-perceptual implicit test, an identification-conceptual implicit test, a production-perception implicit test and a production-concept implicit test were investigated. In this study, two new production tasks were designed. The learning-test paradigm was used to explore the relationship between retrieval interference and different types of implicit memory by setting up digital interference tasks at the same time in the retrieval stage of the test. The results showed that (1) under the condition of no interference, both the lexical judgement task (identification-perceptual test) and semantic classification task (identification-conceptual) display a significant priming effect, and under the condition of interference, the priming effect of the two types of tasks disappears. (2) Under the condition of no interference, both the production lexical judgement task (production-perceptual test) and the production semantic classification task (production-conceptual test) show obvious priming effects; however, under interference conditions, the two kinds of production judgements still have obvious priming effects. Because of the priming effect for both interference conditions, we performed repeated 2 (with or without interference) * 2 (processing level) analysis of variance tests for the priming amounts (reaction time and ACs) of the two production experiments to determine whether interference would influence the priming effect. The results showed that the priming amounts of the two experiments under interference conditions were significantly lower than those under noninterference conditions. Therefore, compared with those for noninterference conditions, the priming effects of the two implicit identification tests disappeared under retrieval interference. Although the priming effects of the two implicit production memory tasks significantly decreased, there was still a significant priming effect. In conclusion, the retrieval processing of different types of implicit memory tests is affected by interference, and unconscious memory retrieval processing is not completely automated processing but is also regulated by attention resources. Identified implicit memory is more easily affected by retrieval interference than productive implicit memory. Under retrieval interference, there is a separation of the identified implicit memory and production implicit memory, and identified priming is more easily affected by retrieval interference than is productive priming.
Subjects: Psychology >> Cognitive Psychology submitted time 2019-12-15
Abstract： Many previous studies have explored the relationship between retrieval interference and explicit memory by comparing memory performance in the divided-attention condition with that in the full-attention condition. However, relatively few studies have discussed the effect of target detection on explicit memory during retrieval in dual-task situations by comparing a target detection condition, in which participants carry out a recognition task and press the spacebar simultaneously when a target appears, with a distractor rejection condition, in which participants perform the same recognition task and do not respond when they see a distractor. Because the detection of a target requires more attention than the rejection of a distractor, an interesting question remains as to whether target detection and distractor rejection have different influences on recognition memory? Sixty undergraduate students (30 students in experiment 1 and 30 students in experiment 2) participated in this study. A study-test(encoding/recognition)paradigm was adopted, and the participants were required to perform a shallow/deep encoding task with two-character Chinese words as stimuli. They were then asked to conduct a target detection task and an old/new recognition task simultaneously in the retrieval phase. For the target detection task, in experiment 1, the participants were instructed to press the spacebar(overt detection); in experiment 2, the participants were instructed to perform a counting operation(covert detection) when they detected the target(a “+”) rather than the distractor(a “-”). The participants were told that the recognition task and the target detection task were equally important. They were asked to perform both tasks as quickly and as accurately as possible. The reaction time(RT) and accuracy data in the retrieval phase were recorded and analyzed by analysis of variance. The results showed that in experiment 1 (the keypress response task) and experiment 2(the counting response task), regardless of the kind of processing was required(i.e., shallow or deep processing), the reaction times for the old words were significantly shorter in the target condition than in the distractor condition, and the accuracy scores for recognizing the old words were significantly higher in the target condition than in the distractor condition, indicating that explicit memory retrieval was regulated by the participants’ available attention resources. However, for the new words, we found exactly the opposite phenomenon: the reaction times were significantly longer in the target condition than in the distractor condition, and the accuracy scores were also significantly lower in the target condition than in the distractor condition. More importantly, we calculated the sensitivity index(d′) and decision criterion(C) established by signal detection theory. The participants’ sensitivity indexes showed no significant variations between the target condition and the distractor condition, but the mean values of the decision criteria decreased in the target condition when compared to those in the distractor condition. The results revealed that detecting a target in the explicit memory retrieval phase did not boost the retrieval of words but decrease participants’ decision criteria. Participants responded in a more liberal way in the target condition than in the distractor condition, and the effects of target detection on explicit memory retrieval may not be affected by the depth of processing and different reaction modes. Thus, explicit memory retrieval was also modulated by the available attention resources and, therefore, was not wholly automatic. "
Subjects: Psychology >> Experimental Psychology submitted time 2019-11-20
Abstract： Stimuli presented with interference of the nature of targets detection are later recognized more accurately than that of distracted rejection, an unusual effect labeled the attentional boost effect (ABE). Spataro, Mulligan, Gabrielli and Rossi-Arnaud (2016) proposed the item-specific account, arguing that target detection mainly facilitates the processing of item-specific information rather than relational information. The item-specific account seems to have a larger scope of application. However, Spataro et al. (2016) proposed this account mainly based on the different degrees to which test tasks depended on item-specific and relational information. As a result, we propose a question: if target detection mainly promotes the item-specific information of the background stimulus, when the background stimulus mainly depends on the processing of relational information, will the promoting effect of target detection be reduced or even disappear? The discussion of this issue could provide more direct evidence for the item-specific account of the ABE. In the present study, mixed learning and classified learning methods were used to process the item-specific information and relational information of background stimuli. In general, pictures and words contain different perceptual information; the memory of picture preferentially utilizes image representations, while the memory of word preferentially utilizes semantic representations. Additionally, do the processing differences seen between words and pictures change the effects of classified and mixed learning on the ABE? To answer these questions, the current study performed two experiments to test whether the ABE is affected by the different types of processing needed for words and pictures used as background information. The experiment was a 2 (presentation mode: classified learning, mixed learning) × 3 (stimulus type: target, distraction, baseline) mixed design. The presentation mode is the between-subjects variable, and the stimulus type is the within-subjects variable. In experiment 1, in classified learning, category words and words unrelated to the category were presented in sequential groups, and the words in each group were presented randomly. To enhance the effect of classification, a 3000 ms "blink" cue and a 1000 ms "continue" cue were inserted between every two groups of words. In mixed learning, category words and words unrelated to the category were presented randomly through a mixed display, and there were no extra intervals between groups. Sixty students participated in experiment 1, and 78 students participated in experiment 2. Participants were told to read each word aloud while simultaneously monitoring a small indicator above the word. Participants were then instructed to press the space bar as quickly as possible when they saw that the indicator was a “+” (a target) and to withhold a response when they saw that the indicator was a “–” (a distractor) or when they did not see an indicator at all (no indicator). In experiment 2, pictures (brief strokes) were used as background stimuli, and the other task and procedure were similar to those in experiment 1. The main results were as follows. In Experiment 1, the ABE is robust only in mixed learning; that is, the recognition rate of target-paired words is obviously better than that of distractor-paired words (p = 0.004) and even reaches the level of full attention (baseline words)(p = 0.95). The recognition rate of distractor-paired words is obviously lower than that of baseline words(p = 0.044), showing a typical distraction inhibitory effect. Moreover, there was no significant difference between target-paired words (p = 0.636) and baseline words (p = 0.697) in the two presentation modes, but the recognition rate of distractor-paired words during classified learning was significantly higher than that of mixed learning (p = 0.008). In experiment 2, the ABE was found in both classified and mixed learning modes, but the ABE during classified learning (10%) was lower than that during mixed learning (16%). The recognition rate of target-paired pictures was even better than that of baseline pictures, showing an absolute attention boosting effect. Moreover, there was no significant difference between the recognition rate for the two kinds of target-paired pictures (p = 0.614). However, the recognition rates of distractor-paired pictures (p = 0.043) and baseline pictures (p = 0.036) show differences in the presentation mode. During classified learning, the recognition rates of distractor-paired pictures and baseline pictures are slightly higher than those during mixed learning. The results suggest that compared with the mixed learning condition, the ABE in the classified learning condition is reduced. Compared with pictures, the ABE for words is more vulnerable to classified learning, which can even makes the ABE disappear. This effect may occur because participants tend to encode relational information in classified learning, which may reduce the inhibitory effect of distraction rejection, thus reducing the difference between target-pair stimuli and distractor-pair stimuli. Therefore, the current study provides more direct evidence for the item-specific account of the ABE. "
Hits
Hits
Downloads
Comment