重复字母增加了字符串的模糊性:来自识别、启动和相同-不同任务的证据

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Iliyana V. Trifonova , James S. Adelman
{"title":"重复字母增加了字符串的模糊性:来自识别、启动和相同-不同任务的证据","authors":"Iliyana V. Trifonova ,&nbsp;James S. Adelman","doi":"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Letters are often repeated in words in many languages. The present work explored the mechanisms underlying processing of repeated and unique letters in strings across three experimental paradigms. In a 2AFC perceptual identification task, the insertion but not the deletion of a letter was harder to detect when it was repeated than when it was unique (Exp. 1). In a masked primed same-different task, deletion primes produced the same priming effect regardless of deletion type (repeated, unique; Exp. 2), but insertion primes were more effective when the additional inserted letter created a repetition than when it did not (Exp. 3). In a same-different perceptual identification task, foils created by modifying a repetition, by either repeating the wrong letter or substituting a repeated letter, were harder to reject than foils created by modifying unique letters (Exp. 4). Thus, repetition effects were task-dependent. Since considering representations alone would suggest repetition effects would always occur or never occur, this indicates the importance of modelling task-specific processes. The similarity calculations embedded in the Overlap Model (Gomez et al., 2008) appeared to always predict a repetition effect, but its decision rule for the task of Experiment 1 allowed it to predict the asymmetry between insertions and deletions. In the Letters in Time and Retinotopic Space (LTRS; Adelman, 2011) model, repetition effects arise only from briefly presented stimuli as their perception is incomplete. It was therefore consistent with Experiments 2–4 but required a task-specific response bias to account for the insertion-deletion asymmetry of Experiment 1.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50669,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Psychology","volume":"132 ","pages":"Article 101445"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Repeated letters increase the ambiguity of strings: Evidence from identification, priming and same-different tasks\",\"authors\":\"Iliyana V. Trifonova ,&nbsp;James S. Adelman\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101445\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Letters are often repeated in words in many languages. The present work explored the mechanisms underlying processing of repeated and unique letters in strings across three experimental paradigms. In a 2AFC perceptual identification task, the insertion but not the deletion of a letter was harder to detect when it was repeated than when it was unique (Exp. 1). In a masked primed same-different task, deletion primes produced the same priming effect regardless of deletion type (repeated, unique; Exp. 2), but insertion primes were more effective when the additional inserted letter created a repetition than when it did not (Exp. 3). In a same-different perceptual identification task, foils created by modifying a repetition, by either repeating the wrong letter or substituting a repeated letter, were harder to reject than foils created by modifying unique letters (Exp. 4). Thus, repetition effects were task-dependent. Since considering representations alone would suggest repetition effects would always occur or never occur, this indicates the importance of modelling task-specific processes. The similarity calculations embedded in the Overlap Model (Gomez et al., 2008) appeared to always predict a repetition effect, but its decision rule for the task of Experiment 1 allowed it to predict the asymmetry between insertions and deletions. In the Letters in Time and Retinotopic Space (LTRS; Adelman, 2011) model, repetition effects arise only from briefly presented stimuli as their perception is incomplete. It was therefore consistent with Experiments 2–4 but required a task-specific response bias to account for the insertion-deletion asymmetry of Experiment 1.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50669,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Psychology\",\"volume\":\"132 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101445\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028521000682\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010028521000682","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在许多语言中,字母经常在单词中重复出现。本研究在三个实验范式中探讨了字符串中重复和唯一字母的加工机制。在2AFC感知识别任务中,字母的插入而非删除在重复时比在唯一时更难被检测到(实验1)。在屏蔽启动相同-不同任务中,删除启动产生相同的启动效应,无论删除类型(重复,唯一;实验2),但是当额外插入的字母产生重复时,插入启动比没有(实验3)时更有效。在相同-不同的感知识别任务中,通过修改重复产生的箔,通过重复错误的字母或替换重复的字母,比修改唯一字母产生的箔更难被拒绝(实验4)。因此,重复效应是任务依赖的。由于单独考虑表征会表明重复效应总是会发生或永远不会发生,这表明了建模任务特定过程的重要性。重叠模型(Gomez et al., 2008)中嵌入的相似性计算似乎总是预测重复效应,但其对实验1任务的决策规则允许它预测插入和删除之间的不对称性。在时间和视网膜位置空间(LTRS)中的信件Adelman, 2011)模型,重复效应只产生于短暂呈现的刺激,因为他们的感知是不完整的。因此,这与实验2-4一致,但需要任务特异性反应偏差来解释实验1的插入-删除不对称。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Repeated letters increase the ambiguity of strings: Evidence from identification, priming and same-different tasks

Letters are often repeated in words in many languages. The present work explored the mechanisms underlying processing of repeated and unique letters in strings across three experimental paradigms. In a 2AFC perceptual identification task, the insertion but not the deletion of a letter was harder to detect when it was repeated than when it was unique (Exp. 1). In a masked primed same-different task, deletion primes produced the same priming effect regardless of deletion type (repeated, unique; Exp. 2), but insertion primes were more effective when the additional inserted letter created a repetition than when it did not (Exp. 3). In a same-different perceptual identification task, foils created by modifying a repetition, by either repeating the wrong letter or substituting a repeated letter, were harder to reject than foils created by modifying unique letters (Exp. 4). Thus, repetition effects were task-dependent. Since considering representations alone would suggest repetition effects would always occur or never occur, this indicates the importance of modelling task-specific processes. The similarity calculations embedded in the Overlap Model (Gomez et al., 2008) appeared to always predict a repetition effect, but its decision rule for the task of Experiment 1 allowed it to predict the asymmetry between insertions and deletions. In the Letters in Time and Retinotopic Space (LTRS; Adelman, 2011) model, repetition effects arise only from briefly presented stimuli as their perception is incomplete. It was therefore consistent with Experiments 2–4 but required a task-specific response bias to account for the insertion-deletion asymmetry of Experiment 1.

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 Psychology
Cognitive Psychology 医学-心理学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.80%
发文量
29
审稿时长
50 days
期刊介绍: Cognitive Psychology is concerned with advances in the study of attention, memory, language processing, perception, problem solving, and thinking. Cognitive Psychology specializes in extensive articles that have a major impact on cognitive theory and provide new theoretical advances. Research Areas include: • Artificial intelligence • Developmental psychology • Linguistics • Neurophysiology • Social psychology.
×
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