情景间语义关系对语义关联判断的影响

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 通过两个实验探讨了情景间语义关系对语义关联判断的影响。实验1采用单因素被试内实验设计，以32名大学生为被试，对随机呈现的情景图片做有语义关联和无语义关联判断。实验2采用单因素被试内设计，比较27名大学生被试对不同语义关联情景进行判断时的眼动特征。结果发现：（1）与非语义关联情景相比，对语义关联情景材料的判断反应时较短；（2）主题关系条件下的瞳孔直径显著小于类别关系判断，凝视时间的变化与语义关联判断反应一致；（3）主题兴趣区与类别兴趣区的首次注视时间无显著差异，但不同兴趣区的回视次数和回视路径时间均存在显著差异。这表明情景间语义关系可以促进语义关联判断，而类别语义关系判断可能会受低水平视觉加工的干扰。

关键词: 真实情景, 语义关系, 语义关联判断, 眼动

Abstract: The present study conducted two experiments to explore whether there was semantic relationship between different scenes, and the characteristics of eye movement in the process of semantic scene categorizes. Experiment 1 used single factor within-subject design and asked 32 participants to judge the relationship between both scenes. The results showed that subjects' response time for semantic relationship scene was lower than non-semantic relationship scene in semantic relationship judgment tasks. Eye movement paradigm was applied in experiment 2 to researched the information processing during semantic relationship judgement, and 27 college students participated this study. The results showed that average fixation pupil size in thematic categorization condition was lower than in taxonomic categorization condition. The change of dwell time was in accordance with the judgment of semantic relationship. Furthermore, there was not difference in first fixation duration between different interest areas, but there was significant difference in regression counts, and regression path duration. These results implied that semantic relationship judgment was promoted by semantic relationship from different scenes, and the taxonomic categorization disturbed probably by low-level scene perception.

Key words: real-world scene, semantic relationship, semantic associated judgment, eye movement

中图分类号:

B842

康廷虎, 吴晨静. 情景间语义关系对语义关联判断的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(1): 1-7.

KANG Tinghu, WU Chenjing. The Role of Semantic Relationship between Different Scenes in Semantic Associated Judgment[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(1): 1-7.

参考文献

康廷虎, 白学军. (2013). 靶刺激变换与情景信息属性对真实情景再认的影响. 心理科学, 36(3), 558-569
康廷虎, 王丽. (2016). 局部亮度与语义关系对真实情景识别的影响. 心理科学, 39(4), 835-841
闫国利, 熊建萍, 臧传丽, 余莉莉, 崔磊, 白学军. (2013). 阅读研究中的主要眼动指标评述. 心理科学进展, 21(9), 594-605
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-609.
Caramazza, A., & Mahon, B. Z. (2003). The organization of conceptual knowledge: The evidence from category-specific semantic deficits. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(8), 354-361.
Chee, M. W. L., Weekes, B., Lee, K. M., Soon, C. S., Schreiber, A., Hoon, J. J., & Chee, M. (2000). Overlap and dissociation of semantic processing of Chinese characters, English words, and pictures: Evidence from fMRI. NeuroImage, 12(4), 392-403.
Chen, Q. F., Li, P., Xi, L., Li, F. H., Lei, Y., & Li, H. (2013). How do taxonomic versus thematic relations impact similarity and difference judgments? An ERP study. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 90(2), 135-142.
Chen, Q. F., Ye, C., Liang, X. L., Cao, B. H., Lei, Y., & Li, H. (2014). Automatic processing of taxonomic and thematic relations in semantic priming: Differentiation by early N400 and late frontal negativity. Neuropsychologia, 64, 54-62.
de Zubicaray, G. I., Hansen, S., & Mcmahon, K. L. (2013). Differential processing of thematic and categorical conceptual relations in spoken word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 131-142.
Estes, Z., Golonka, S., & Jones, L. L. (2011). Thematic thinking: The apprehension and consequences of thematic relations. Psychology of Learning & Motivation, 54, 249-294.
Gutchess, A. H., Hedden, T., Ketay, S., Aron, A., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2010). Neural differences in the processing of semantic relationships across cultures. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 5, 254-263.
Gutchess, A. H., Yoon, C., Luo, T., Feinberg, F., Hedden, T., Jing, Q. C., Nisbett, R. E., & Park, D. C. (2006). Categorical organization in free recall across culture and age. Gerontology, 52(5), 314-323.
Henderson, J. M. (2005). Introduction to real-world scene perception. Visual Cognition, 12(6), 849-851.
Henderson, J. M., & Hollingworth, A. (1999). High-level scene perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 243-271.
Hwang, A. D., Wang, H. C., & Pomplun, M. (2011). Semantic guidance of eye movements in real-world scenes. Vision Research, 51(10), 1192-1205.
Ji, L. J., Zhang, Z. Y., & Nisbett, R. E. (2004). Is it culture or is it language? Examination of language effects in cross-cultural research on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 57-65.
Jones, L. L., & Golonka, S. (2012). Different influences on lexical priming for integrative, thematic, and taxonomic relations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 205.
Kalénine, S., Peyrin, C. C., Pichat, C., Segebarth, C., Bonthoux, F., & Baciu, M. (2009). The sensory-motor specificity of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: A behavioral and fMRI study. NeuroImage, 44(3), 1152-1162.
Lewis, G. A., Poeppel, D., & Murphy, G. L. (2015). The neural bases of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations: An MEG study. Neuropsychologia, 68, 176-189.
Lin, E. L., & Murphy, G. L. (2001). Thematic relations in adults' concepts. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 130(1), 3-28.
Maintenant, C., Blaye, A., & Paour, J. L. (2011). Semantic categorical flexibility and aging: Effect of semantic relations on maintenance and switching. Psychology and Aging, 26(2), 461-466.
Markman, E. M. (1991). Categorization and naming in children: Problems of induction. Genes & Development, 8(24), 3058-3067.
Medin, D., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179-195). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mirman, D., Landrigan, J. F., & Britt, A. E. (2017). Taxonomic and thematic semantic systems. Psychological Bulletin, 143(5), 499-520.
Muehlhaus, J., Heim, S., Altenbach, F., Chatterjee, A., Habel, U., & Sass, K. (2014). Deeper insights into semantic relations: An fMRI study of part-whole and functional associations. Brain and Language, 129, 30-42.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K. P., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291-310.
Patterson, K., Nestor, P. J., & Rogers, T. T. (2007). Where do you know what you know? The representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(12), 976-987.
Pennequin, V., Fontaine, R., Bonthoux, F., Scheuner, N., & Blaye, A. (2006). Categorization deficit in old age: Reality or artefact? Journal of Adult Development, 13(1), 1-9.
Renninger, W. L., & Malik, J. (2004). When is scene identification just texture recognition? Vision Research, 44(19), 2301-2311.
Sachs, O., Weis, S., Krings, T., Huber, W., & Kircher, T. (2008). Categorical and thematic knowledge representation in the brain: Neural correlates of taxonomic and thematic conceptual relations. Neuropsychologia, 46(2), 409-418.
Sachs, O., Weis, S., Zellagui, N., Huber, W., Zvyagintsev, M., Mathiak, K., & Kircher, T. (2008). Automatic processing of semantic relations in fMRI: Neural activation during semantic priming of taxonomic and thematic categories. Brain Research, 1218, 194-205.
Torralba, A., Oliva, A., Castelhano, M. S., & Henderson, J. M. (2006). Contextual guidance of eye movements and attention in real-world scenes: The role of global features in object search. Psychological Review, 113(4), 766-786.
Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2003). Neuroimaging studies of semantic memory: Inferring "how" from "where". Neuropsychologia, 41(3), 280-292.
Ullman, S. (1996). High-level vision: Object recognition and visual cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wamain, Y., Pluciennicka, E., & KalãNine, S. (2015). A saw is first identified as an object used on wood: ERP evidence for temporal differences between thematic and functional similarity relations. Neuropsychologia, 71, 28-37.
Yi, K., Li, D., Park, W. S., Park, K.-H., Shim, T.-T., Kwern, O., & Kim, J. Y. (2011). Korean deaf adolescents' awareness of thematic and taxonomic relations among ordinary concepts represented by pictures and written words. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(3), 375-391.
Ziaeefard, M., & Bergevin, R. (2015). Semantic human activity recognition: A literature review. Pattern Recognition, 48(8), 2329-2345.

[1]	贾宁, 容丽卓, 代景华. 社会性线索对内隐和外显元认知监控的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(5): 593-599.
[2]	李士一, 谢岩枫, 赵光, 白学军. 媒体多任务经验对不同注意模式下内隐记忆的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(4): 433-440.
[3]	张慢慢, 胡惠兰, 边菡, 李芳, 张志超, 臧传丽. 中文阅读中快速读者与慢速读者的词频效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(3): 304-310.
[4]	何立媛, 赵星, 白玉, 刘妮娜. 汉语老年读者的多词单元加工：来自眼动研究的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(2): 160-166.
[5]	秦钊, 王影超, 叶佳滢, 袁小源, 闫国利. 聋人句子阅读中的视觉功能补偿现象：副中央凹−中央凹效应的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(2): 167-173.
[6]	顾俊娟, 高志华, 马绍扬. 嵌套词汉字位置加工的亚词边界效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(1): 1-7.
[7]	赵赛男, 李琳, 张俐娟, 王敬欣. 汉语阅读中高限制性语境对不可预测词加工的影响：眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(6): 736-742.
[8]	刘璐, 姜雅梅, 张巧明, 李诸洋. 义符位置与语义透明度对形声字语义激活的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 585-591.
[9]	李赛男, 闫国利, 王亚丽, 刘敏, 赵淑萍. 一年级小学生阅读知觉广度的眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 606-611.
[10]	张苏媛, 兰泽波, 张水, 孟珠, 闫国利. 无关言语对一年级小学生阅读影响的眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(4): 433-438,446.
[11]	高晓雷, 沈梦, 任晓飞, 白学军, 高蕾. 高、低汉语水平藏–汉读者汉语阅读知觉广度及预视效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 297-303,333.
[12]	贺斐, 梁菲菲, 白学军. 汉语阅读伴随词汇学习的形旁类别一致性效应[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 304-311.
[13]	康立超, 兰泽波, 韩映虹. 不同阅读方式下图画书重复阅读对4～5岁幼儿文字关注影响的眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 368-374.
[14]	何立媛, 田雪, 李悦, 沈凤丹, 王永胜, 吴捷. 无关言语影响老年人阅读过程的眼动研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 375-381.
[15]	乌仁其木格, 赵傲雪, 汪钰涵, 庄想灵, 马国杰. “找茬”任务中的视野偏好与参照策略[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(2): 166-171.