类别使用目的对类别典型性效应的影响*

心理与行为研究 ›› 2017, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (1): 34-40.

类别使用目的对类别典型性效应的影响*

陶云^1,2, 王晓曦³, 刘艳⁴, 马谐^1,2, 陈睿^1,2, 李思齐^1,2,

1 云南师范大学教育科学与管理学院,昆明 650500
2 云南师范大学民族教育信息化教育部重点实验室,昆明 650500
3 昆明学院学前与特殊教育学院,昆明 650214
4 昆明理工大学外国语言文化学院,昆明 650600

收稿日期:2016-08-06 出版日期:2017-01-20 发布日期:2017-03-02
通讯作者: 王晓曦,E-mail：psywanxx@163.com。
基金资助:
* 国家自然科学基金（31660282）

How Category Use Impacts Category Typicality Effect

Tao Yun^1,2, Wang Xiaoxi³, Liu Yan⁴, Ma Xie^1,2, Chen Rui^1,2, Li Siqi^1,2

1 Department of Educational Science and Management, Yunnan Normal University 650500;
2 Key Laboratory of Educational Information for Nationalities(YNNU), Ministry of Education, Kunming 650500;
3 Department of Preschool education and Special Education, Kunming 650214;
4 Faculty of Foreign Languages and Cultures, Kunming University of Science and Technology

Received:2016-08-06 Online:2017-01-20 Published:2017-03-02

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 采用ERPs技术,对不同类别使用目的的典型性效应进行研究。通过分类方式控制类别使用目的,分别采用包含法和排除法对材料进行类属判断。结果表明：（1）排除组反应时显著短于包含组,表明两种条件下被试可能采取了不同的认知加工策略;（2）在认知加工早期阶段210ms-310ms,包含组引发了更大的N2波幅,这说明类别使用目的对类别典型性表征的影响在早期认知加工阶段就已有所表现。（3）370ms-470ms阶段,典型性样例在排除组引发了比包含组更大的N400;表明类别使用目的影响了典型性表征的加工。

关键词: 类别使用目的, 类别典型性, N2, N400

Abstract: ERPs technique were employed to explore how category use affects the category typicality effect. Inclusion and exclusion judgment were adopted in two experiment groups respectively in order to control the category use goal. The results were, 1)there was no significant difference in Accuracy(ACC)between two groups, while the exclusion group was significantly faster than inclusion group in terms of the Reaction Time(RT). And material property effect was significant in both ACC and RT, nonmember held the highest ACC and the fastest RT with typical exemplars as the second, and atypical exemplars the last. 2)N2 was significantly larger in the inclusion group, while interaction of classification method and material property were marginally significant, indicating that both category use and material property impact the early cognitive processing. 3)N400 waves were related to typicality effects in past studies suggesting that typical item elicit the lowest N400 wave. In the present study, typical items in the inclusion group also elicited the lowest N400 wave, whereas typical items elicited the highest N400 wave in the exclusion group. Thus, typicality effects reversed in the exclusion group. The results suggested that, the operational mechanism of inclusion and exclusion judgments was different, with exclusion judgment easier than inclusion. Category use affected category representation in early cognitive processing period; and the typicality effect was determined by both category use and material property.

Key words: category use goal, typicality effect, N2, N400

中图分类号:

B842.1

陶云, 王晓曦, 刘艳, 马谐, 陈睿, 李思齐,. 类别使用目的对类别典型性效应的影响*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2017, 15(1): 34-40.

Tao Yun, Wang Xiaoxi, Liu Yan, Ma Xie, Chen Rui, Li Siqi. How Category Use Impacts Category Typicality Effect[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2017, 15(1): 34-40.

参考文献

1 Bonnefond, M., Van der Henst, J., Gougain, M., Robic, S., Olsen, M. D., & Weiss, O., et al.(2012). How pragmatic interpretations arise from conditionals: Profiling the Affirmation of the Consequent argument with reaction time and EEG measures. Journal of Memory and Language, 67(4), 468-485.
2 Chen, A., Xu, P., Wang, Q., Luo, Y., Yuan, J., & Yao, D., et al.(2008). The timing of cognitive control in partially incongruent categorization. Human brain mapping, 29(9), 1028-1039.
3 Davis, T., & Love, B. C.(2010). Memory for category information is idealized through contrast with competing options. Psychological Science, 21(2), 234-242.
4 Eimer, M.(1993). Effects of attention and stimulus probability on ERPs in a Go/Nogo task. Biol Psychol, 35(2), 123-138.
5 Fujihara, N., Nageishi, Y., Koyama, S., & Nakajima, Y.(1998). Electrophysiological evidence for the typicality effect of human cognitive categorization. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 29(1), 65-75.
6 Heinze, H. J., Muente, T. F., & Kutas, M.(1998). Context effects in a category verification task as assessed by event-related brain potential(ERP) measures. Biological Psychology, 47(2), 121-135.
7 Huang, S., Tang, Z., Li, F., & Li, H.(2013). Electrophysiological Correlates of Category Induction in Children and Adults. Developmental neuropsychology, 38(1), 22-35.
8 Hunt, L. R., Politzer-Ahles, S., Gibson, L., Minai, U., & Fiorentino, R.(2013). Pragmatic inferences modulate N400 during sentence comprehension: Evidence from picture-sentence verification. Neuroscience Letters, 534, 246-251.
9 Jee, B. D., & Wiley, J.(2007). How goals affect the organization and use of domain knowledge. Memory & Cognition, 35(5), 837-851.
10 Kittur, A., Holyoak, K. J., & Hummel, J. E.(2006). Ideals aren′t always typical: Dissociating goodness-of-exemplar from typicality judgments. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.
11 Larson, M. J., Clayson, P. E., & Baldwin, S. A.(2012). Performance monitoring following conflict: Internal adjustments in cognitive control? Neuropsychologia, 50(3), 426-433.
12 Lei, Y., Li, F., Long, C., Li, P., Chen, Q., & Ni, Y., et al.(2010). How does typicality of category members affect the deductive reasoning? An ERP study. Experimental brain research, 204(1), 47-56.
13 Lynch, E. B., Coley, J. D., & Medin, D. L.(2000). Tall is typical: Central tendency, ideal dimensions, and graded category structure among tree experts and novices. Memory & Cognition, 28(1), 41-50.
14 Markman, A. B., & Ross, B. H.(2003). Category use and category learning. Psychological bulletin, 129(4), 592.
15 Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J.(1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychological review, 104(2), 266.
16 Nunez-Pena, M. I., & Honrubia-Serrano, M. L.(2005). N400 and category exemplar associative strength. Intentional Journal Psychophysiology, 56(1), 45-54.
17 Ross, B. H.(1997). The use of categories affects classification. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(2), 240-267.
18 Ross, B. H., & Warren, J. L.(2002). Learning abstract relations from using categories. Memory & cognition, 30(5), 657-665.
19 Stewart, N., & Brown, G. D.(2004). Sequence effects in the categorization of tones varying in frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 416.
20 Stewart, N., Brown, G. D., & Chater, N.(2002). Sequence effects in categorization of simple perceptual stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(1), 3.
21 Stewart, N., & Brown, G. D.(2005). Similarity and dissimilarity as evidence in perceptual categorization. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49(5), 403-409.

[1]	冯杰, 徐娟, 李亚兰, 伍新春. 先天视觉经验缺失对颜色认知的影响：一项ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(3): 289-296.
[2]	王梦, 范为桥, 沈英. 整体型和局部型思维风格的ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(4): 472-479.
[3]	杨海波, 牛丽丽, 尹莎莎, 白学军. 视觉工作记忆中非语义编码信息对注意捕获的影响：来自ERPs的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(1): 8-14.
[4]	曾庆, 郑希付. 厌恶与恐惧情绪习得的性别差异研究:一项ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(5): 624-631.
[5]	马谐, 胡娜, 陈睿, 王晓曦, 王凯, 刘艳. 基于语义错觉效应的句子加工探索[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2016, 14(4): 568-576.
[6]	颜志雄，燕良轼，范伟，丁道群，邹霞. 身体清洁启动后道德纯洁词加工的时间特征:来自ERPs的证据^*[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2014, 12(5): 609-615.
[7]	钟毅平,谢四元,周路平. 对乙肝患者群体认知的矛盾态度：行为与ERP证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2009, 7(4): 241-246.
[8]	吕勇,许贵芳,沈德立. 汉英语言内及语言间重复启动效应的ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2008, 6(2): 81-88.