Psychological Development and Education ›› 2014, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (1): 55-60,74.

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Comparison of the Learning Process and Selective Attention between Referential Communicators

ZHANG Heng-chao   

  1. Department of Psychology in Tianjin University of Commerce, Tianjin 300134
  • Online:2014-01-15 Published:2014-01-15

PDF (PC)

Abstract: The study took the undergraduate students as the experimental object and designed the experimental materials of virtual aliens. It created the tasks of functional prediction and dimensional selection to explore the characteristics of the learning process and selective attention between referential communicators by the paradigm of referential communication. The results showed that: From Block 2, the scores of the high-score group were extremely significantly higher than the low-score group. The overall results of dimensional selection of high-score group were significantly better than low-score group. The results of non-relative dimensional selection made a good manifestation. The results suggested that: The learning process between referential communicators was unbalanced. The overall levels of selective attention were unbalanced, and the imbalance was reflected by the concentration level of selective attention.

Key words: referential communication, learning process, selective attention, imbalance

CLC Number: 

  • G442

Bangerter, A., & Clark, H. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27(2), 195-225.

Barr, D. J., & Keysar, B. (2002). Anchoring comprehension in linguistic precedents. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 391-418.

Bezuidenhout, A. (2012). Perspective taking in conversation: A defense of speaker non-egocentricity. Journal of Pragmatics, in press.

Bgels, S., Schriefers, H., Vonk, W., & Chwilla, D. J. (2011). Pitch accents in context: How listeners process accentuation in referential communication. Neuropsychologia, 49, 2022-2036.

Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Cleland, A. A. (2000). Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue. Cognition, 75(2), B13-B25.

Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., Pearson, J., & McLean, J. F. (2010). Linguistic alignment between people and computers. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 2355-2368.

Brennan, S. E., Chen, X., Dickinson, C. A., Neider, M. B., & Zelinsky, G. J. (2008). Coordinating cognition: The costs and benefits of shared gaze during collaborative search. Cognition, 106(3), 1465-1477.

Brennan, S. E., & Hanna, J. E. (2009). Partner-specific adaptation in dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 274-291.

Bromme, R., Jucks, R., & Wagner, T. (2005). How to refer to 'diabetes'? Language in online health advice. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19,569-586.

Brown-Schmidt, S. (2009). Partner-specific interpretation of maintained referential precedents during interactive dialog. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(2), 171-190.

Brown-Schmidt, S., & Hanna, J. E. (2011). Talking in another person's shoes: Incremental perspective-taking in language processing. Dialog and Discourse, 2, 11-33.

Clark, H. H., & Carlson, T. B. (1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language, 58, 332-373.

Clark, H. H., & Murphy, G. L. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. In J.-F. LeNy & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Language and comprehension. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Epley, N., Keysar, B., VanBoven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 327-339.

Frank, M. C., & Gibson, E. (2011). Overcoming memory limitations in rule learning. Language, Learning, & Development, 7, 130-148.

Frank, M. C., & Goodman, N. D. (2012). Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science, 336, 998-1007.

Galati, A., & Brennan, S. E. (2010). Attenuating information in Spoken Communication: For the speaker, or for the addressee? Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 35-51.

Haugh, M. (2012).On understandings of intention: a response to Wedgwood. Intercultural Pragmatics 9,164-194.

Haywood, S. L., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (2005). Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialog? Psychological Science, 16, 362-366.

Heller, D., Gorman, K. S., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2012). To name or to describe: shared knowledge affects referential form. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(2), 290-305.

[JP+1]Holler, J., & Wilkin, K. (2009). Communicating common ground: How mutually shared knowledge influences speech and gesture in a narrative task. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(2), 267-289.

Holler, J., & Wilkin, K. (2011). Co-Speech gesture mimicry in the process of collaborative referring during Face-to-Face dialogue. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 35(2), 133-153.

Jennifer, E. A., Jason, M. K., & Giulia, P. (2012). Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 505-525.

Kaplan, F., & Hafner, V. V. (2006). The challenges of joint attention. Interaction Studies, 7(2), 135-169.

Keysar, B., Lin, S., & Barr, D. J. (2003). Limits on theory of mind use in adults. Cognition, 89(1), 25-41.

Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1991). Perspective-taking in communication: Representations of others' knowledge in reference. Social Cognition, 9(1), 2-24.

Krauss, R. M., & Weinheimer, S. (1964). Changes in reference phrases as a function of frequency of usage in social interaction: A preliminary study. Psychonomic Science, 1, 113-114.

Kristen, S. G., Whitney, G., Chelsea, R. M.,& Michael, K. T. (2011). Memory representations supporting speakers' choice of referring expression: Effects of category overlap and shared experience. The 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society(CogSci11). Boston, MA.

Kronmüller, E., & Barr, D. J. (2007). Perspective-free pragmatics: Broken precedents and the recovery-from-preemption hypothesis. Journal of Memory and Language, 56(3), 436-455.

Markman, A. B., & Makin, V. S. (1998). Referential communication and category acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(4), 331-354.

Mills, G. J. (2011). The emergence of procedural conventions in dialogue. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of CogSci. Boston. USA.

Nicholas, D. D., Rick, D., & Roger, J. K. (2011). Listeners invest in an assumed other's perspective despite cognitive cost. Cognition, 121, 22-40.

Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1999). Syntactic priming in language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(4), 136-141.

Ratneshwar, S., Barsalou, L. W., Pechmann, C., & Moore, M. (2001). Goal-Derived Categories: The Role of Personal and Situational Goals in Category Representations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 10(3), 147-157.

Rossnagel, C. (2000). Cognitive load and perspective taking: Applying the automatic-controlled distinction to verbal communication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 429-445.

Ruiter, J. P., Bangerter, A., & Dings, P. (2012). The interplay between gesture and speech in the production of referring expressions: Investigating the tradeoff hypothesis. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 232-248.

Scott-Phillips, T., Kirby, S., & Ritchie, G. (2009). Signalling signalhood and the emergence of communication. Cognition, 113(2), 226-233.

Shintel, H., & Keysar, B. (2009). Less is more: A minimalist account of joint action in communication. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(2), 260-273.

Tyl'en, K., Weed, E., Wallentin, M., Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C. (2010). Language as a tool for interacting minds. Mind & Language, 25(1), 3-29.

Wagner, M. & Watson, D. G. (2010). Experimental and theoretical advances in prosody: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(7), 905-945.

Yoon, S. O., Koh, S., & Brown-Schmidt, S. (2012). Influence of perspective and goals on reference production in conversation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(4), 699-707.

Yu, C., Schermerhorn, P., & Scheutz, M. (2012). Adaptive eye gaze patterns in interactions with human and artificial agents. Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 1(2), 13-43.

沈德立, 白学军. (2006). 实现高效率学习的心理机制研究. 心理科学, 1, 2-5.

沈德立, 白学军. (2008). 实现高效率学习的认知心理学基础研究. 天津: 天津科学技术出版社.

杨丽霞, 陈永明, 周治金. (2001). 不同理解能力的个体在词汇加工中的抑制机制. 心理学报, 33(4), 294-299.

张恒超. (2013). 参照性交流中的“听者设计”. 心理发展与教育, 29(5), 552-560.

张恒超, 阴国恩. (2010). 学习方式对关系类别间接性学习的影响. 心理与行为研究, 8(4), 257-262.

张恒超, 阴国恩. (2012a). 关系复杂性对关系类别间接性学习的影响. 心理发展与教育, 28(2), 193-200.

张恒超, 阴国恩. (2012b). 关系复杂性对关系类别间接性学习中选择性注意的影响. 心理科学, 35(4), 823-828.

张恒超, 阴国恩. (2012c). 关系复杂性对关系类别间接性学习分类的影响. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 34(8), 138-144.
[1] ZHANG Hengchao. The Influence of Communicative Context on Learners' Language Selective Attention in the Learning Process [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2019, 35(3): 320-328.
[2] ZHANG Heng-chao. “Audience Design” of Referential Communication [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2013, 29(5): 552-560.
[3] ZHANG Heng-chao, YIN Guo-en. The Influence of the Relational Complexity upon the Indirect Learning of Relational Category [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2012, 28(2): 193-200.
[4] LUO Liang, LIN Chong-de, CHEN Guang. Effects of Spatial and Object-based Attention Interference on Spatial and Object Working Memory [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2010, 26(6): 561-568,576.
[5] ZHANG Xue-min, SHEN Ji-liang, LIN Chong-de, WANG Ping-ping, LIU Shuai. A Study on Visual Selective Attention Development of Primary School Children [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2008, 24(1): 19-24.
[6] ZHANG Xue-min, SHEN Ji-liang, LIN Chong-de. A Study on Classroom Information Processing Strategies of Primary School Teachers [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2005, 21(4): 56-60.
[7] ZHANG Xue-min, SHEN Ji-liang, LIN Chong-de. Effect of Selective attention and Insight on Classroom Information Perception of Primary School Teachers [J]. Psychological Development and Education, 2002, 17(3): 57-62.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Copyright 2018 © Editorial office of Psychological Development and Education
Supported by Beijing Magtech Co.Ltd