类别学习语言标签效应的眼动研究

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用眼动技术,通过两个实验探讨人工语言标签与真实语言标签在类别学习中的作用。实验一对33名大学本科被试施测,探讨了人工语言标签对类别学习的影响。结果发现,在人工语言标签下,个体会基于标签的相似性进行分类。实验二对34名大学本科被试施测,探讨了真实语言标签对类别学习的影响。结果发现,在真实语言标签下,个体会基于标签的类别知识进行分类。类别学习中语言标签效应的熟悉程度影响分类方式,不熟悉的类别语言标签基于相似性分类,熟悉的类别语言标签基于知识分类;基于类别知识分类准确性更高,速度更快。

关键词: 类别学习, 相似性, 语言标签, 眼动

Abstract: Linguistic labels play an important role in category learning. in these studies, we explored how the artificial linguistic labels and real linguistic labels influence the category learning by the eye tracker. In experiment 1, Were 33 undergraduate Measurement,four kinds of artificial linguistic labels were designed in form of appearance (similar vs. dissimilar)×label (similar vs. dissimilar). The result indicated that, in the artificial linguistic label circumstance, participants tended to classify the targets based on the label similarity. In experiment 2, Were 34 undergraduate Measurement,the participants were presented the real linguistic labels under the condition that the familiarity of the labels was controlled. Four kinds of the labels were similar appearance and familiar-labels, similar appearance and unfamiliar-labels, dissimilar appearance and unfamiliar-labels, similar appearance and familiar-labels. Under the real linguistic label circumstance, participants tended to classify the targets based on knowledge category of the label. From above 2 experiment, we found artificial linguistic results corroborated the similarity-based account in adults group, but real linguistic labels contributed to the knowledge-based. Linguistic labeling effect of familiarity in category learning affects the classification. classification is based on similarity in unfamiliar category linguistic label, while in familiar category linguistic label, it is based on knowledge; classification is higher in accuracy and faster based on category knowledge.

Key words: categorization, similarity, linguistic labels, eye tracking

中图分类号:

B844.3

唐志文, 邢强. 类别学习语言标签效应的眼动研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2013, 29(5): 475-482.

TANG Zhi-wen, XING Qiang. Real and Artificial Linguistic Labels Effect in Category Learning：Evidence from Eye Movements[J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2013, 29(5): 475-482.

参考文献

David, A., Shlomo, B. (2009). Familiarity effects on categorization levels of faces and objects. Cognition, 111(1), 144-149.
Feeney, A., Handley, S., & Kentridge, R. W. (2003a). Deciding between accounts of the selection task: a reply to Oaksford (2002). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56(6), 1079-1088.
Feeney, A., Handley, S., & Kentridge, R. W. (2003b). Deciding between accounts of the selection task: A reply to Oaksford (2002). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section a-Human Experimental Psychology, 56(6), 1079-1088.
Feeney, A., & Wilburn, C. (2008). Deciding between theories of how reasoning develops is hard. Cognition, 108(2), 507-511.
Freedman, D. J., & Assad, J. A. (2011). A proposed common neural mechanism for categorization and perceptual decisions. Nature Neuroscience, 14(2), 143-146.
Freedman, M. D. (2003). A bioavailability study in the proposed patient population - with much more needed now. Critical Care Medicine, 31(5), 1588-1589.
Fulkerson, A. L., & Haaf, R. A. (2003). The influence of labels, non-labeling sounds, and source of auditory input on 9-and 15-month-olds' object categorization. Infancy, 4(3), 349-369.
Fulkerson, A. L., & Waxman, S. R. (2007). Words (but not Tones) facilitate object categorization: Evidence from 6-and 12-month-olds. Cognition, 105(1), 218-228.
Gelman, S. A. (2009). Learning from Others: Children's Construction of Concepts. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 115-140.
Hayes, B. K., McKinnon, R., & Sweller, N. (2008). The development of category-based induction: Reexamining conclusions from the induction then recognition (ITR) paradigm. Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1430-1441.
Opfer, J. E., & Bulloch, M. J. (2007). Causal relations drive young children's induction, naming, and categorization. Cognition, 105(1), 206-217.
Rehder, B., Colner, R. M., & Hoffman, A. B. (2009). Feature inference learning and eyetracking. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(3), 393-419.
Rips, L. J. (1989).Similarity, typicality and categorization. In S.Vo sniadou, & A. Ortony (Eds.). Similarity and analogicalreasoning[M]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Schnyer, D. M., Maddox, W. T., Ell, S., Davis, S., Pacheco, C., & Verfaellie, M. (2009). Prefrontal contributions to rule-based and information-integration category learning. Neuropsychologia, 47(13), 2995-3006.
Sloman, S. A. (2005). Causal models : how people think about the world and its alternatives. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Sloutsky,V.M.,& Fisher,A.V.(2012).Linguistic labels:Conceptual markers or object features? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,111(1),65-86.
Sloutsky, V. M., & Fisher, A. V. (2004a). Induction and categorization in young children: A similarity-based model. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 133(2), 166-188.
Sloutsky, V. M., & Fisher, A. V. (2004b). When development and learning decrease memory - Evidence against category-based induction in children. Psychological Science, 15(8), 553-558.
Sloutsky, V. M., & Fisher, A. V. (2001). How much does a shared name make things similar? Linguistic labels, similarity, and the development of inductive inference. Child Development, 72(6), 1695-1709.
陈安涛,李红. (2010). 人工类别学习研究范式述评. 心理科学, 33(4), 907-909.
龙长权, 李红, 邓小凤, 袁颖, 李军,雷怡. (2012). 相似和相同语言标签对幼儿归纳推理的影响. 心理发展与教育,10(3), 239-247.
胡诚, 刘志雅, 陈琳,莫雷. (2010). 儿童归纳推理中的标签作用. 心理科学进展, 18(2), 224-242.
张仙峰, 叶文玲.(2006). 当前阅读研究中眼动指标述评.心理与行为研究, 4(3), 236-240.
邢强,唐志文,赖永.(2008). 相似性与解释的类别学习研究新进展. 广州大学学报(社会科学版),7(9),69-73.

相关文章 15

[1]	王敬欣, 赵赛男, 徐倩倩. 字间空格与词频对青年人和老年人阅读的影响:眼动研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 781-787.
[2]	高子惠, 焦雨, 王曦, 刘肖岑. 电子绘本文字的动静态呈现方式对幼儿阅读体验和学习效果的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2023, 39(6): 817-824.
[3]	于晓, 张涵, 陈英和, 戚玥, 刘爱芳, 刘丽丽. 类比推理的眼动研究:揭示个体类比推理策略发展的有效手段[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(6): 897-903.
[4]	施芳婷, 郑晨烨, 颜秀琳, 陆露, 王静梅, 邸波, 卢英俊. 5~6岁幼儿对不同文化背景卡通面孔再认的眼动研究[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(3): 323-334.
[5]	马安然, 王燕青, 王福兴, 周治金. 教学微视频的播放速度对学习效果的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2021, 37(3): 391-399.
[6]	张恒超. 不同语境下交流学习双方语言相似性的比较[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(4): 440-448.
[7]	韩瑽瑽, 陈英和, 于晓, 邓之君, 刘静, 侯江文, 林燕燕. 表面相似性对数量关系和相对大小关系理解的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(3): 257-264.
[8]	辛聪, 张曼曼, 郭盈秀, 郭云飞, 陈幼贞. 前瞻记忆意向后效应的加工机制:来自眼动的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2020, 36(2): 138-145.
[9]	刘志方, 仝文, 张骏. 中文阅读中词汇加工的年老化:眼动证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(6): 665-677.
[10]	王薇, 徐知宇, 李永鑫, 程奕芸. 情绪主题绘本阅读对自闭症谱系障碍儿童情绪理解障碍的干预效果[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(5): 566-572.
[11]	张骏, 仝文, 刘志方. 不同词长中文句子阅读知觉广度的年老化:眼动证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(3): 312-319.
[12]	陈朝阳, 刘志方, 苏永强, 程亚华. 高低阅读技能聋生词汇加工的语境预测性效应特点:眼动证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2018, 34(6): 692-699.
[13]	童钰, 王福兴. 威胁性刺激蛇一定会被更快觉察吗?蛇与蜥蜴的对比[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(5): 524-534.
[14]	苏永强, 付福音, 刘志方, 陈朝阳. 阅读中词汇视觉编码年老化的原因:基于消失文本实验的证据[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2017, 33(4): 433-440.
[15]	李文静, 童钰, 王福兴, 康素杰, 刘华山, 杨超. 动画教学代理对多媒体学习的影响:学习者经验与偏好的调节作用[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2016, 32(4): 453-462.

多维度评价

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed