工作记忆中的部分线索效应:任务呈现方式的影响

doi:10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2021.04.05

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 以往研究主要在长时记忆中考察部分线索效应，很少关注工作记忆中的部分线索效应及其作用机制。本研究采用项目再认任务，考察了工作记忆中提供部分学习项目作为提取线索，对存储在工作记忆中的已有表征的影响。结果发现：有、无部分线索试次分组呈现时，相较于无部分线索条件，有部分线索条件下再认正确率和d'降低，β升高，反应时间延长；有、无部分线索试次随机混合呈现时，有部分线索条件下再认正确率降低，β升高，但反应时间并无显著延长。结果表明：工作记忆中部分线索的提供降低了目标项目的表征强度；研究结果可用提取抑制假说解释，但工作记忆中部分线索的作用可能受注意资源有限性制约。

关键词: 部分线索效应, 工作记忆, 呈现方式, 提取抑制假说

Abstract: When people are asked to recall words they have studied earlier from a list, those given a subset of these words as cues recall fewer words than people who do not receive any cues. This phenomenon is the so called part-list cuing effect. Whereas many studies have examined part-list cuing effect in long-term memory, the mechanisms and effects of part-list cuing effect within working memory are less well understood. The current study tests how part-list cuing instructions delivered in a working memory task influence veridical memory over the short term.
Using a modified item recognition task, and adopting category-sample words as stimulus, we investigated the part-list cuing effect in working memory through two experiments. The cue trials and uncue trials in Experiment 1 were presented in separate blocks. While in Experiment 2, the cue trials and uncue trials were presented in the same block with a pseudo-random order. The accuracy and reaction time were chosen as statistical indexes.
The results show that:(1) The part-list cuing effect exists in working memory; (2) When the cue trials and uncue trials were presented in separate blocks, participants' recognition accuracy and discriminability were lower in the part-list cuing condition than in the non-cue condition, and the reaction time was longer in the part-list cuing condition, whereas the response bias was higher in the part-list cuing condition; (3) When the cue trials were randomly interleaved with uncue trials, participants' recognition accuracy was lower in the part-list cuing condition than in the non-cue condition, the response bias was higher in the part-list cuing condition, whereas discriminability and reaction time were not significant different under the two conditions.
The results of this study imply that the task presentation mode has influence on memory performance for part-list cuing effect in working memory. Partial results provide evidence for the retrieval inhibition hypothesis, but the effect of part-list cues was constraint to a limited attention resource in working memory.

Key words: part-list cuing effect, working memory, task presentation mode, retrieval inhibition hypothesis

中图分类号:

B844

刘湍丽, 单亚菲, 邢敏, 白学军. 工作记忆中的部分线索效应:任务呈现方式的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(4): 489-497.

LIU Tuanli, SHAN Yafei, XING Min, BAI Xuejun. Part-list Cuing Effect in Working Memory: Effects of Task Presentation Mode[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2021, 37(4): 489-497.

参考文献

Anderson, M. C., Bjork, R. A., & Bjork, E. L. (1994). Remembering can cause forgetting:Retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 20(5), 1063-1087.
Aslan, A., Bäuml, K. H., & Grundgeiger, T. (2007). The role of inhibitory processes in part-list cuing. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(2), 335-341.
Atkins, A. S., & Reuterlorenz, P. A. (2008). False working memories? Semantic distortion in a mere 4 seconds. Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 74-81.
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556-559.
Baddeley, A. (2012). Working memory:Theories, models, and controversies. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 1-29.
Basden, D. R., & Basden, B. H. (1995). Some tests of the strategy disruption interpretation of part-list cuing inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(6), 1656-1669.
Bäuml, K-H., & Samenieh, A. (2012). Influences of part-list cuing on different forms of episodic forgetting. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(2), 366-375.
Bi, C., Liu, P., Yuan, X., & Huang, X. (2014). Working memory modulates the association between time and number representation. Perception, 43(5), 417-426.
Blough, D. S. (1978). Reaction times of pigeons on a wavelength discrimination task. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 30(2), 163-167.
Brébion, G., Larøi, F., & van der Linden, M. (2010). Associations of hallucination proneness with free-recall intrusions and response bias in a nonclinical sample. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 32(8), 847-854.
Cabeza, R., Dolcos, F., Graham, R., & Nyberg, L. (2002). Similarities and differences in the neural correlates of episodic memory retrieval and working memory. Neuroimage, 16(2), 317-330.
Chen, H., & Wyble, B. (2015). The location but not the attributes of visual cues are automatically encoded into working memory. Vision Research, 107, 76-85.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135-168.
D'Lauro, C., Tanaka, J. W., & Curran, T. (2008). The preferred level of face categorization depends on discriminability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 623-629.
Dombert, P. L., Fink, G. R., & Vossel, S. (2016). The impact of probabilistic feature cueing depends on the level of cue abstraction. Experimental Brain Research, 234(3), 685-694.
Duarte, A., Hearons, P., Jiang, Y., Delvin, M. C., Newsome, R. N., & Verhaeghen, P. (2013). Retrospective attention enhances visual working memory in the young but not the old:An ERP study. Psychophysiology, 50(5), 465-476.
Festini, S. B. (2014). Memory control:Investigating the consequences and mechanisms of directed forgetting in working memory (Unpublished doctorial dissertation). University of Michigan.
Fritz, C. O., & Morris, P. E. (2015). Part-set cuing of texts, scenes, and matrices. British Journal of Psychology, 106(1), 1-21.
Gabbiani, F., & Cox, S. J. (2017). Chapter 27-signal detection theory. Mathematics for Neuroscientists(2nd ed., pp.451-462).Academic Press.
Griffin, I. C., & Nobre, A. C. (2003). Orienting attention to locations in internal representations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(8), 1176-1194.
Guzel, M. A., & Higham, P. A. (2013). Dissociating early-and late-selection processes in recall:The mixed blessing of categorized study lists. Memory & Cognition, 41(5), 683-697.
Jeneson, A., & Squire, L. R. (2012). Working memory, long-term memory, and medial temporal lobe function. Learning & Memory, 19(1), 15-25.
John, T., & Aslan, A. (2018). Part-list cuing effects in children:A developmental dissociation between the detrimental and beneficial effect. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 166, 705-712.
Jonides, J., Lewis, R. L., Nee, D. E., Lustig, C. A., Berman, M. G., & Moore, K. S. (2008). The mind and brain of short-term memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 193-224.
Kang, M. S., & Choi, J. (2015). Retrieval-induced inhibition in short-term memory. Psychological Science, 26(7), 1014-1025.
Kawashima, T., & Matsumoto, E. (2017). Cognitive control of attentional guidance by visual and verbal working memory representations. Japanese Psychological Research, 59(1), 49-57.
Kray, J., Lucenet, J., & Blaye, A. (2010). Can older adults enhance task-switching performance by verbal self-instructions? The influence of working-memory load and early learning. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 2, 147.
Kuo, B. C., Stokes, M. G., & Nobre, A. C. (2012). Attention modulates maintenance of representations in visual short-term memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(1), 51-60.
Loaiza, V. M., & Camos, V. (2018). The Role of Semantic Representations in Verbal Working Memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44(6), 863-881.
Nee, D. E., & Jonides, J. (2008). Neural correlates of access to short-term memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(37), 14228-14233.
Norris, D. (2017). Short-term memory and long-term memory are still different. Psychological Bulletin, 143(9), 992-1009.
Oberauer, K., & Lin, H. Y. (2017). An interference model of visual working memory. Psychological Review, 124(1), 21-59.
Öztekin, I., Davachi, L., & Mcelree, B. (2010). Are representations in working memory distinct from representations in long-term memory? Neural evidence in support of a single store. Psychological Science, 21(8), 1123-1133.
Postle, L. P. B. R. (2008). Temporary activation of long-term memory supports working memory. Journal of Neuroscience:The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 28(35), 8765-8771.
Rajsic, J., Swan, G., Wilson, D., & Pratt, J. (2017). Accessibility limits recall from visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(9), 1415-1431.
Ranganath, C., & Blumenfeld, R. S. (2005). Doubts about double dissociations between short-and long-term memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(8), 374-380.
Reysen, M. B., & Nairne, J. S. (2002). Part-list cuing of false memories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(2), 389-393.
Slamecka, N. J. (1968). An examination of trace storage in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(4), 504-513.
Williams, M., & Woodman, G. F. (2012). Directed forgetting and directed remembering in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 38(5), 1206-1220.
白学军, 刘湍丽, 沈德立. (2014). 部分线索效应的认知抑制过程:情绪Stroop任务证据. 心理学报, 46(2), 143-155.
蔡雪丽, 高贺明, 曹碧华, 李富洪. (2015). 短时记忆定向遗忘的负荷效应:来自ERP的证据. 心理科学, 38(3), 514-520.
陈红, 郭春彦, 杨海波. (2015). 延迟间隔和提取条件对短时错误记忆的影响. 心理与行为研究, 13(1), 37-43.
刘湍丽, 白学军. (2017). 部分线索对记忆提取的影响:认知抑制能力的作用. 心理学报, 49(9), 1158-1171.
刘湍丽, 张春霞, 唐卫海, 刘希平. (2018). 部分线索效应的发展特点研究. 信阳师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版), 38(3), 13-17.
刘湍丽, 赵宇飞, 邢敏, 白学军. (2019). 编码-提取匹配和线索负荷对部分线索效应的影响. 心理与行为研究, 17(4), 433-441.
刘兆敏, 郭春彦. (2013). 工作记忆和长时记忆共享信息表征的ERP证据. 心理学报, 45(3), 298-309.
赵林林, 孟迎芳. (2017). 线索类型与呈现位置对视觉工作记忆的影响. 牡丹江师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版), 2, 126-129.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

[1]	彭越, 张和颐, 陈英和, 雷秀雅, 戚玥, 于晓, 乔学文, 刘沫漩, 颜露懿. 类比推理策略与工作记忆、抑制控制关系的年龄差异[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 761-771.
[2]	宋佳汝, 刘媛媛, 王秀礼, 李寿欣. 视觉与言语工作记忆表征对视觉注意的引导[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(5): 609-617.
[3]	温凯玲, 陈萍, 杨双, 宁宁. 前摄干扰对汉语听写困难儿童字形工作记忆的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(2): 153-160.
[4]	吴国婧, 程雪林, 李叶, 白荣, 邢淑芬, 李玉华. 学前期儿童执行功能和语言的双向关系:社会经济地位的调节[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(2): 186-194.
[5]	许郡婷, 鲍未, 罗俊龙. 不稳定控制感剥夺损害工作记忆刷新功能[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2022, 38(1): 1-9.
[6]	吴文春, 陈嘉倩, 刘昌. 客体和空间工作记忆中三维图形的特征加工时程[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(5): 513-521.
[7]	潘毅, 张琳. 工作记忆内容驱动完全无关刺激捕获注意[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(5): 522-529.
[8]	王静梅, 张义宾, 郑晨烨, 卢英俊, 秦金亮. 3~6岁儿童执行功能子成分发展的研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(1): 1-10.
[9]	王凯旋, 苗沂林, 车晓玮, 李寿欣. 空间工作记忆负载对中央注视线索返回抑制的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(6): 649-655.
[10]	曹钰舒, 徐璐璐, 贺雯, 罗俊龙, 李海江. 不同人际情境影响工作记忆的初探[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(2): 139-144.
[11]	吴文春, 孙悦亮, 徐学. 三维图形的客体和空间工作记忆存储机制[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(2): 145-152.
[12]	邢强, 夏静静, 王彩燕. 工作记忆容量与内容相关性对类别学习的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(3): 324-329.
[13]	代曼, 刘儒德, 邸妙词, 马雪莹, 徐乐. 工作记忆负荷和自动化提取对小学生加法心算策略执行效果的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2014, 30(4): 420-426.
[14]	张乾一, 文萍. 3岁幼儿抑制和工作记忆的可分离性研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2013, 29(3): 238-246.
[15]	吴文春. 两维特征图形的客体和空间工作记忆存储研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2013, 29(3): 247-254.