Sponsor(s): Chinese Psychological Society; Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
12 issues per year
Current Issue: Issue 06, 2020
Journal official website:http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/0439-755X/home.shtml
Acta Psychologica Sinica is a scholarly journal sponsored by Chinese Psychological Society and Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, co-sponsored by Department of Psychology, Chinese University of HongKong, published monthly by the Science Press. It is to publish original empirical studies and theoretical papers in the broad field of psychology including cognitive and experimental psychology, developmental and educational psychology, physiological and medical psychology, management social psychology, psychological measure, psychological history and method et al.
ZHANG Kan, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
FUNG Helene Hoi Lam, Department of Psychology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, China
HAU Kit-Tai, Department of Educational Psychology, Chinese Univ
Acta Psychologica Sinica,2020,Vol 52,No. 06
The object-based correspondence effect (also called object-based Simon effect), is a special spatial correspondence effect, which refers to the phenomenon that responses are faster and more accurate when a handle of the graspable object and the response position or the responding hand are consistent than inconsistent. Tucker and Ellis (1998) first found the object-based correspondence effect, and attributed the effect to the functional affordance of handles. In other words, when participants watch the graspable object, they automatically activate the tendency to grasp the handle of the object with their corresponding hands. Therefore, when the responding hand which is automatically activated by the handle is consistent with that required by the task, responses are faster. In addition to the functional affordance, many researchers have also used the spatial position coding account to explain this effect. The account held the view that the generation of the object-based correspondence effect was related to the position of the asymmetric handle of the stimuli, which automatically activated the response of the ipsilateral position, leading to the object-based correspondence effect (Cho & Proctor, 2010). It’s uncertain that the generation of object-based correspondence effect is due to affordance coding or spatial coding hypothesis. In the present study, three experiments were conducted to investigate the generation mechanism of the object-based correspondence effect. The stimulus materials were the silhouettes and photographs of the frying pans. In Experiment 1 the frying pan was located at the center of the screen, participants were asked to judge the stimulus to be upright or inverted, and responded with the responding hand. The aim of it was to examine whether the silhouettes and photographs of the frying pan would exist the object-based correspondence effect without significant spatial position. In Experiment 2, the base of the frying pan was placed at the center of the screen, which made the left and right position of the handle more significant, and continued to examine whether the object-based correspondence effect would appear when there existed the significant spatial coding. In Experiment 3, a crossed-hand response paradigm was adopted to separate response position from responding hand coding; in other words, participants pressed the right key with the left hand and the left key with the right hand, to further explore the generation mechanism of the object-based correspondence effect. The results suggested that there existed the object-based correspondence effect in Experiment 1 when spatial location of the stimulus was not significant for silhouette stimuli, but not photograph stimuli. In Experiment 2 when the spatial position of the stimuli was more significant, silhouette and photograph stimuli both showed the correspondence effect and the effect size was similar. The RT combined analysis of Experiment 1 and 2 suggested that the correspondence effect size of Experimental 2 was larger than that of Experiment 1 for silhouette stimuli, and similar for photograph stimuli. In Experiment 3 when the hands were crossed there was correspondence effect between the handle and the response position for both silhouette and photograph stimuli, but not the correspondence effect between the handle and the responding hand. The combined analysis with the Experiment 2 suggested that the effect size of Experiment 3 was smaller than that of Experiment 2 for both silhouette and photograph stimuli. Based on these results, it is concluded that the spatial coding hypothesis plays an important role in the generation of the object-based correspondence effect during a two key-pressing selection task, and the affordance coding or other explanations are much smaller than that.
Acta Psychologica Sinica,2020,Vol 52,No. 06
Many previous studies have explored the relationship between retrieval interference and explicit memory by comparing memory performance in the divided attention condition with that in the full attention condition. However, relatively few studies have discussed the effect of target detection on explicit memory during retrieval in dual-task situations by comparing a target detection condition, in which participants carry out a recognition task and press the spacebar simultaneously when a target appears, with a distractor rejection condition, in which participants perform the same recognition task and do not respond when they see a distractor. Because the detection of a target requires more attention than the rejection of a distractor, an interesting question remains as to whether target detection and distractor rejection have different influences on recognition memory. A total of 60 undergraduate students (30 students in Experiment 1 and 30 students in Experiment 2) participated in this study. A study-test (encoding/recognition) paradigm was adopted, and the participants were required to perform a shallow/deep encoding task with two-character Chinese words as stimuli. They were then asked to conduct a target detection task and an old/new recognition task simultaneously in the retrieval phase. For the target detection task, in Experiment 1, the participants were instructed to press the spacebar (overt detection); in Experiment 2, the participants were instructed to perform a counting operation (covert detection) when they detected the target (a “+”) rather than the distractor (a “−”). The participants were told that the recognition task and the target detection task were equally important. They were asked to perform both tasks as quickly and as accurately as possible. The reaction time (RT) and accuracy data in the retrieval phase were recorded and analyzed by analysis of variance. The results showed that in Experiment 1 (the keypress response task) and Experiment 2 (the counting response task), regardless of the kind of processing was required (i.e., shallow or deep processing), the reaction times for the old words were significantly shorter in the target condition than in the distractor condition, and the accuracy scores for recognizing the old words were significantly higher in the target condition than in the distractor condition, indicating that explicit memory retrieval was regulated by the participants’ available attentional resources. However, for the new words, we found the exactly opposite phenomenon: the reaction times were significantly longer in the target condition than in the distractor condition, and the accuracy scores were also significantly lower in the target condition than in the distractor condition. More importantly, we calculated the sensitivity index ( d′) and the decision criterion ( C) established by the signal detection theory. The participants’ sensitivity indexes showed no significant variations between the target condition and the distractor condition, but the mean values of the decision criteria decreased in the target condition when compared with those in the distractor condition. The results revealed that detecting a target in the explicit memory retrieval phase did not boost the retrieval of words but decrease participants’ decision criteria. Participants responded in a more liberal way in the target condition than in the distractor condition, and the effects of target detection on explicit memory retrieval may not be affected by the depth of processing and different reaction modes. Thus, explicit memory retrieval was also modulated by the available attentional resources and, therefore, was not wholly automatic.