{"title":"选择性和非选择性限制性启动类型的加性潜伏期效应。","authors":"E Buckolz, C Alain, C Sarrazin","doi":"10.1037/h0084256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The purpose of this investigation was to examine further the contention of Alain et al. (1988) that a third priming type exists, called nonselective restricted (NSR) and controlled by response probability, which is distinct from those types influenced by foreperiod duration (nonselective general priming) and prediction probability (selective priming). In a four-choice reaction time (RT) task, prediction probability (.5, .7, & .9, indicating the likelihood of a particular response) and response probability (.5, .9, denoting the likelihood that a response would be needed at all) exerted significant but noninteractive effects on RTs for prepared responses (most probable), suggesting that each of these probabilities influence different priming types (Sternberg, 1969; selective and NSR, respectively). This was further indicated by the fact that prediction probability, but not response probability, significantly altered RTs for the unprepared (lesser probable) responses. Finally, the hypothesized nonselective character of NSR priming (i.e., all outputs controlled by response probability are equally affected by its value changes) was supported when responses were equiprobable, and, while the null effect of response probability just mentioned seemingly argued against this property when selective priming took place, the interpretation provided herein negated this opposition.</p>","PeriodicalId":75671,"journal":{"name":"Canadian journal of psychology","volume":"44 3","pages":"330-44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1990-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1037/h0084256","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Additive latency effects of selective and nonselective restricted priming types.\",\"authors\":\"E Buckolz, C Alain, C Sarrazin\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/h0084256\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The purpose of this investigation was to examine further the contention of Alain et al. (1988) that a third priming type exists, called nonselective restricted (NSR) and controlled by response probability, which is distinct from those types influenced by foreperiod duration (nonselective general priming) and prediction probability (selective priming). In a four-choice reaction time (RT) task, prediction probability (.5, .7, & .9, indicating the likelihood of a particular response) and response probability (.5, .9, denoting the likelihood that a response would be needed at all) exerted significant but noninteractive effects on RTs for prepared responses (most probable), suggesting that each of these probabilities influence different priming types (Sternberg, 1969; selective and NSR, respectively). This was further indicated by the fact that prediction probability, but not response probability, significantly altered RTs for the unprepared (lesser probable) responses. Finally, the hypothesized nonselective character of NSR priming (i.e., all outputs controlled by response probability are equally affected by its value changes) was supported when responses were equiprobable, and, while the null effect of response probability just mentioned seemingly argued against this property when selective priming took place, the interpretation provided herein negated this opposition.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75671,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian journal of psychology\",\"volume\":\"44 3\",\"pages\":\"330-44\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1990-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1037/h0084256\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian journal of psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084256\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian journal of psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084256","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
本研究的目的是进一步检验Alain et al.(1988)的观点,即存在第三种启动类型,称为非选择性限制性启动(NSR),受反应概率控制,与受前期持续时间(非选择性一般启动)和预测概率(选择性启动)影响的启动类型不同。在四选项反应时间任务中,预测概率为。5, .7, & .9,表示特定反应的可能性)和反应概率(。5,9,表示完全需要反应的可能性)对准备好的反应(最可能)的RTs产生了显著但非互动的影响,这表明每种可能性都会影响不同的启动类型(Sternberg, 1969;选择性和NSR分别)。这一事实进一步表明,预测概率(而非反应概率)显著改变了未准备(可能性较小)反应的RTs。最后,当反应为等概率时,NSR启动的非选择性特征(即响应概率控制的所有输出都受到其值变化的同等影响)得到了假设的支持,而刚才提到的响应概率的零效应似乎与选择性启动时的这一性质相矛盾,但本文的解释否定了这一对立。
Additive latency effects of selective and nonselective restricted priming types.
The purpose of this investigation was to examine further the contention of Alain et al. (1988) that a third priming type exists, called nonselective restricted (NSR) and controlled by response probability, which is distinct from those types influenced by foreperiod duration (nonselective general priming) and prediction probability (selective priming). In a four-choice reaction time (RT) task, prediction probability (.5, .7, & .9, indicating the likelihood of a particular response) and response probability (.5, .9, denoting the likelihood that a response would be needed at all) exerted significant but noninteractive effects on RTs for prepared responses (most probable), suggesting that each of these probabilities influence different priming types (Sternberg, 1969; selective and NSR, respectively). This was further indicated by the fact that prediction probability, but not response probability, significantly altered RTs for the unprepared (lesser probable) responses. Finally, the hypothesized nonselective character of NSR priming (i.e., all outputs controlled by response probability are equally affected by its value changes) was supported when responses were equiprobable, and, while the null effect of response probability just mentioned seemingly argued against this property when selective priming took place, the interpretation provided herein negated this opposition.