進階搜尋


 
系統識別號 U0026-0812200915031411
論文名稱(中文) 語詞產製各個階段注意力涉入程度之探究
論文名稱(英文) Attentional Demands at Different Processing Stages of Word Production
校院名稱 成功大學
系所名稱(中) 認知科學研究所
系所名稱(英) Institute of Cognitive Science
學年度 97
學期 1
出版年 98
研究生(中文) 林文攀
研究生(英文) Wen-Pan Lin
學號 u7695103
學位類別 碩士
語文別 中文
論文頁數 84頁
口試委員 召集委員-曾玉村
口試委員-曾進興
指導教授-陳振宇
中文關鍵字 注意力  語言產製作業  雙重作業 
英文關鍵字 attention  dual task  language production 
學科別分類
中文摘要 根據Levelt的理論(1989; Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999),說出一個單詞的產製歷程包含一連串依序進行、任務分工的階段,這些階段初略地包括概念產生、詞類碼選取、詞形碼提取、音素提取、語音組裝、及發聲動作準備與控制。一般人在產製一個詞的時候,速度相當快,而且多半無法意識、察覺到自己如何進行這樣的工作。因此,一個值得研究的問題是,無意識或低意識的認知處理是否仍要消耗注意力資源?單詞產製過程中的各個階段是否都要耗費注意力資源?耗費的程度會不會不同?Ferreira & Pashler (2002)的研究顯示,詞類碼選取及詞形碼提取需要耗費注意力資源,但是音素提取則不需要。Cook & Meyer (2008)的研究則認為即使是音素提取也需要耗費注意力資源。這兩個研究採取的方法是雙重作業的心理反應期(Psychological Refractory Period)典範。這個研究典範假定認知處理過程中的某一個階段如果要耗費注意力資源的話,會導致處理上的瓶頸,而使得同一時間需要被處理的另一作業必須被延後處理。在這個典範的假定中,注意力資源的耗費是全有或全無的。本研究採用傳統的雙重作業典範,比較一項辨調或單音的偵測作業,在單獨進行的情況下,與在單詞產製過程的某個階段中進行的情況下,相互比較,以辨調或單音偵測作業在雙重作業的情況下受到影響的程度,來推論單詞產製過程的各個階段是否需要耗費注意力資源,以及所耗費的注意力資源是否相同。
本研究以圖片唸名模擬單詞的產製歷程。實驗一先參照Levelt et al. (1991)的實驗方法,推估每一張圖片唸名的三個單詞產製階段,分別為一張圖片的辨識時間往前250、50以及往後50毫秒,以此代表各張圖片的圖片辨識、圖名選取與語音登錄這三個處理階段的時間點。實驗二要求受試者在圖片唸名過程中的這三個時間點上進行詞彙判斷,藉由操弄刺激詞與圖片名的關係(首字相同、整詞語意相關、首字語音相關、及無關),來驗證這三個時間點是否確實為處理不同任務的不同階段。與單獨進行的情況比較,語意相關詞在我們所設定的圖片唸名的第一個時間點就受到明顯的語意干擾而出現反應時間延遲的現象,這樣的影響進入到第二、第三個時間點時有減緩的趨勢。相反地,語音相關詞在圖片唸名的第一個時間點並未受到影響,但是在進入到第二、第三個時間點時,影響逐漸出現。這樣的結果足以讓我們確認實驗一所推估的單詞產製過程的三個處理階段確實為時間不同、任務不同的階段。
實驗三檢視辨調作業在圖片唸名的三個階段下進行時,相較於單獨進行時,受到影響的程度如何。結果發現,在圖片唸名的三個階段下,辨調作業的反應時間均會受到延遲,且延遲的程度有略微逐漸減少的趨勢。此結果顯示單詞產製過程中的語意與語音處理階段均會耗費不同程度的注意力資源。實驗四比較辨調作業和單音偵測作業受到圖片唸名各個階段的影響。除了實驗三所使用的三個時間點外,另外增加兩個時間點,一個是在參與者唸出圖片名稱時,另一個是唸出圖名後的200毫秒,這兩個時間點皆屬單詞產製的晚期階段。實驗的結果發現,辨調作業和單音偵測作業都受到圖片唸名的各個階段的影響,其反應時間在前三個階段無不同,在後兩個階段則變短。僅以辨調作業來看,在圖名作業的最後兩個時間點(唸出圖名時及唸出圖名後的200毫秒),反應時間仍比實驗三單獨的辨調作業的反應時間還長,這意味著單詞產製的最後階段仍需要耗費注意力資源,不過,耗費的沒有前面的階段多。總結本研究的發現可以知道,單詞產製的各個階段均需耗費注意力資源,不過各階段耗費的資源不同,早期階段需求較高,晚期則較少。有趣的是,即使已經執行了發聲動作,注意力資源似乎仍需部署一些,可能是為了監控所產出的詞是否正確。
英文摘要 According to Levelt (1989; Levelt, Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999), word production involves a series of discrete stages of processing, each of which is responsible for a different type of input and output. Because producing a word is very fast and efficient, a speaker generally has very little or no awareness of what goes on at each stage of word production process. Questions arise as to whether attention resource is required for each stage of processing, particularly the stage which speakers don’t have an insight of, and whether different stages of processing may require different amounts of attention resource. Ferreira & Pashler (2002) found that conceptual and lemma selection as well as phonological encoding demanded attention, whereas phoneme selection did not. Cook & Meyer (2008), on the other hand, showed that even phoneme selection would demand attention. The two studies employed the dual-task PRP (psychological refractory period) paradigm, according to which, a task demanding attention would create a processing bottleneck and cause a concurrent task to delay its processing. With this paradigm, attention resource is assumed to be all or none such that a gradient effect is not predicted. In the present study, we employed the traditional dual task paradigm, where we compared the participants’ performances on a tone discrimination or tone detection task when it was carried out alone and when it had to be executed at different stages of word production. By examining the dual-task cost incurred upon the tone discrimination/detection task, we inferred the extent of attention consumption demanded by the different stages of word production process.
Single word production was induced via a picture naming task. Following the method of Levelt et al. (1991), Experiment 1 estimated three time points that corresponded roughly to three stages of word production: conceptual encoding, lemma selection, and phonological encoding. The three time points were calibrated for each picture to be named and were determined to be a picture’s identification time minus 250 ms, minus 50 ms, and plus 50 ms. Averaged across pictures, they corresponded to 75 ms, 275 ms, and 375 ms of SOA (stimulus onset asynchrony). Experiment 2 used a visual lexical decision task combined with picture naming to verify if the three SOAs (short, medium, long) indeed tapped different stages of word production process. In particular, the short SOA should be sensitive to semantic processing while the long SOA should be sensitive to phonological processing. The words were related to the picture names with respect to their first characters, the tonal syllables of their first characters, or the word meanings; or they were unrelated to the picture names. The results of the experiment showed that a large dual-task cost was apparent for semantically related words at the short SOA of picture naming. It decreased linearly as SOA increased. In contrast, the dual-task cost was nill for the phonologically related words at the short SOA, but it increased linearly with the increase of SOA. The results served to confirm that the three SOAs determined in Experiment 1 indeed tapped three different stages of word production process and that these stages involved semantic and phonological processing to different extents.
Experiment 3 went on to employ a two-choice tone discrimination task, which was performed alone as well as at different SOAs of picture naming. The results showed that reaction times of the tone discrimination task were prolonged at all SOAs with a trend of somewhat decreased prolongation over SOAs. The results suggest that attention resource is required to about the same extent at the semantic and the phonological stages of word production process. Experiment 4 contrasted tone discrimination with tone detection to see how they might be differentially affected by picture naming. Two late SOAs were added: one at the onset of the participants’ naming response and the other at 200 ms post the onset of the naming response. The results showed that tone discrimination and tone detection were equally affected by picture naming. Response times were about the same for the first three SOAs and shortened at the last two SOAs. Compared with the tone discrimination task performed alone in Experiment 3, tone discrimination at the longest SOA of Experiment 4 still took longer time, indicating that word production at its latest stage still demands attention, although not as much as it is at the earlier stages.
To summarize, all stages of word production require attention, although to a different extent. Interestingly, attention is still demanded even when articulation has begun. An explanation is that this reflects the work of monitoring.
論文目次 目錄 i
圖目錄 ii
表目錄 iii
緒論 1
語言產製的過程 2
利用雙重作業驗證注意力資源之使用 5
現有在語言不同階段的注意力研究 10
本研究目的與實驗規劃 16
實驗一 圖片唸名與圖片辨識作業 19
實驗一A、圖片唸名作業 21
研究方法 21
結果 22
實驗一B、辨識圖片作業 24
研究方法 24
結果 25
實驗一C、看圖按鍵作業 27
研究方法 27
結果 27
實驗二 圖片唸名與詞彙判斷雙重作業 31
研究方法 32
結果 37
討論 40
實驗三 辨調單一作業、圖片唸名與辨調雙重作業 42
研究方法 43
結果 46
討論 47
實驗四 圖片唸名與辨調或單音偵測雙重作業 50
研究方法 51
結果 52
討論 54
綜合討論 57
參考文獻 65
附錄 68
附錄一 圖片唸名之實驗結果 68
附錄二 圖片辨識反應時間 71
參考文獻 Cook, A. E., & Meyer, A. S. (2008). Capacity demands of phoneme selection in word production: new evidence from dual-task experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 886-899.
Damian, M. F., & Martin, R. C. (1999). Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 345–361.
DeJong, R. (1993). Multiple bottlenecks in overlapping-task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,19, 965–989.
Ferrand, L., Segui, J., & Grainger, J. (1996). Masked priming of word and
picture naming: The role of syllabic units. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 708–723.
Ferreira, V. S., & Pashler, H. (2002). Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 1187-1199.
Hartsuiker, R. J., Corley, M., & Martensen, H. (2005). The lexical bias effect is modulated by context, but the standard monitoring account doesn’t fly: Belated reply to Baars, Motley, and MacKay (1975). Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 58–70.
Indefrey P., & Levelt W. J. M. (2004).The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition, 92, 101–144
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75.
Levelt, W. J. M., Schriefers, H., Vorberg, D., Meyer, A. S., Pechmann, T., & Havinga, J. (1991). The time course of lexical access in speech production: A study of picture naming. Psychological Review, 98, 122-142.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
Meyer, A. S., Roelofs, A., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2003). Word length effects in picture naming: The role of a response criterion. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 131–147.
Monsell,S. (2003). Task switching. Trends Cognitive Science, 134–140.
Mortensen, L., Meyer, A. S., & Humphreys, G. W. (2008). Speech planning during multiple-object naming: Effects of ageing. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1217 - 1238.
Oomen, C. C. E., & Postma, A. (2002). Limitations in processing resources and speech monitoring. Language and Cognitive Processes, 17, 163–184.
Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 19-45.
Pashler, H. (1990). Do response modality effects support multiprocessor models of divided attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,16, 826-842.
Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: Data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220-244.
Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schiller, N. O. (1998). The effect of visually masked syllable primes on the naming latencies of words and pictures. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 484–507.
Schiller, N. O. (1999). Masked syllable priming of English nouns. Brain and Language, 68, 300–305.
Szekely, A., Jacobsen, T., DAmico, S., Devescovi, A., Andonova, E., Herron, D., Lu, C. C., Pechmann, T., Plh, C., Wicha, N., Federmeier, K., Gerdjikova, I., Gutierrez, G., Hung, D., Hsu, J., Iyer, G., Kohnert, K., Mehotcheva, T., Orozco-Figueroa, A., Tzeng, A., Tzeng, O., Arvalo, A., Vargha, A., Butler, A. C., Buffington, R., & Bates, E.(2004). A new on-line resource for psycholinguistic studie s", Journal of Memory and Language , 2004, Vol.51, 247-250.
Wickens, C. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. Attention and Performance VIII, Nickerson, 239-257.
論文全文使用權限
  • 同意授權校內瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2009-10-23起公開。
  • 同意授權校外瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2009-10-23起公開。


  • 如您有疑問,請聯絡圖書館
    聯絡電話:(06)2757575#65773
    聯絡E-mail:etds@email.ncku.edu.tw