熟悉的序列比不熟悉的序列处理得更快,即使它们与计数列表不匹配。

IF 2.3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Declan Devlin, Korbinian Moeller, Iro Xenidou-Dervou, Bert Reynvoet, Francesco Sella
{"title":"熟悉的序列比不熟悉的序列处理得更快,即使它们与计数列表不匹配。","authors":"Declan Devlin,&nbsp;Korbinian Moeller,&nbsp;Iro Xenidou-Dervou,&nbsp;Bert Reynvoet,&nbsp;Francesco Sella","doi":"10.1111/cogs.13481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In order processing, consecutive sequences (e.g., 1-2-3) are generally processed faster than nonconsecutive sequences (e.g., 1-3-5) (also referred to as the reverse distance effect). A common explanation for this effect is that order processing operates via a memory-based associative mechanism whereby consecutive sequences are processed faster because they are more familiar and thus more easily retrieved from memory. Conflicting with this proposal, however, is the finding that this effect is often absent. A possible explanation for these absences is that familiarity may vary both within and across sequence types; therefore, not all consecutive sequences are necessarily more familiar than all nonconsecutive sequences. Accordingly, under this familiarity perspective, familiar sequences should always be processed faster than unfamiliar sequences, but consecutive sequences may not always be processed faster than nonconsecutive sequences. To test this hypothesis in an adult population, we used a comparative judgment approach to measure familiarity at the individual sequence level. Using this measure, we found that although not all participants showed a reverse distance effect, all participants displayed a familiarity effect. Notably, this familiarity effect appeared stronger than the reverse distance effect at both the group and individual level; thus, suggesting the reverse distance effect may be better conceptualized as a specific instance of a more general familiarity effect.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"48 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.13481","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Familiar Sequences Are Processed Faster Than Unfamiliar Sequences, Even When They Do Not Match the Count-List\",\"authors\":\"Declan Devlin,&nbsp;Korbinian Moeller,&nbsp;Iro Xenidou-Dervou,&nbsp;Bert Reynvoet,&nbsp;Francesco Sella\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cogs.13481\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In order processing, consecutive sequences (e.g., 1-2-3) are generally processed faster than nonconsecutive sequences (e.g., 1-3-5) (also referred to as the reverse distance effect). A common explanation for this effect is that order processing operates via a memory-based associative mechanism whereby consecutive sequences are processed faster because they are more familiar and thus more easily retrieved from memory. Conflicting with this proposal, however, is the finding that this effect is often absent. A possible explanation for these absences is that familiarity may vary both within and across sequence types; therefore, not all consecutive sequences are necessarily more familiar than all nonconsecutive sequences. Accordingly, under this familiarity perspective, familiar sequences should always be processed faster than unfamiliar sequences, but consecutive sequences may not always be processed faster than nonconsecutive sequences. To test this hypothesis in an adult population, we used a comparative judgment approach to measure familiarity at the individual sequence level. Using this measure, we found that although not all participants showed a reverse distance effect, all participants displayed a familiarity effect. Notably, this familiarity effect appeared stronger than the reverse distance effect at both the group and individual level; thus, suggesting the reverse distance effect may be better conceptualized as a specific instance of a more general familiarity effect.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Science\",\"volume\":\"48 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.13481\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.13481\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.13481","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在顺序处理过程中,连续序列(如 1-2-3)的处理速度通常快于非连续序列(如 1-3-5)(也称为反向距离效应)。对于这种效应,一种常见的解释是,顺序处理是通过一种基于记忆的联想机制来进行的,即连续序列的处理速度更快,因为它们更熟悉,因此更容易从记忆中检索出来。然而,与这一提议相矛盾的是,这种效应常常不存在。造成这种现象的一个可能的解释是,熟悉程度在序列类型内部和序列类型之间都可能存在差异;因此,并非所有连续序列都一定比所有非连续序列更熟悉。因此,根据这种熟悉程度的观点,熟悉序列的处理速度应该总是快于不熟悉序列,但连续序列的处理速度不一定总是快于非连续序列。为了在成年人群中验证这一假设,我们采用了比较判断法来测量单个序列水平上的熟悉程度。通过这种测量方法,我们发现虽然并非所有参与者都表现出了反向距离效应,但所有参与者都表现出了熟悉效应。值得注意的是,在群体和个体水平上,这种熟悉效应似乎比反向距离效应更强;因此,这表明反向距离效应可能更适合被概念化为一种更普遍的熟悉效应的具体实例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Familiar Sequences Are Processed Faster Than Unfamiliar Sequences, Even When They Do Not Match the Count-List

Familiar Sequences Are Processed Faster Than Unfamiliar Sequences, Even When They Do Not Match the Count-List

In order processing, consecutive sequences (e.g., 1-2-3) are generally processed faster than nonconsecutive sequences (e.g., 1-3-5) (also referred to as the reverse distance effect). A common explanation for this effect is that order processing operates via a memory-based associative mechanism whereby consecutive sequences are processed faster because they are more familiar and thus more easily retrieved from memory. Conflicting with this proposal, however, is the finding that this effect is often absent. A possible explanation for these absences is that familiarity may vary both within and across sequence types; therefore, not all consecutive sequences are necessarily more familiar than all nonconsecutive sequences. Accordingly, under this familiarity perspective, familiar sequences should always be processed faster than unfamiliar sequences, but consecutive sequences may not always be processed faster than nonconsecutive sequences. To test this hypothesis in an adult population, we used a comparative judgment approach to measure familiarity at the individual sequence level. Using this measure, we found that although not all participants showed a reverse distance effect, all participants displayed a familiarity effect. Notably, this familiarity effect appeared stronger than the reverse distance effect at both the group and individual level; thus, suggesting the reverse distance effect may be better conceptualized as a specific instance of a more general familiarity effect.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信