Феномен Струп-интерференции в контексте теорий лексического доступа
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu16.2018.104Аннотация
Обсуждается психолингвистический подход к описанию эмпирических данных, полученных в ходе использования Струп-теста и его модификаций. Участникам классического Струп-теста требуется с максимальной скоростью называть цвета словесных стимулов, игнорируя их значения. При соблюдении определенных условий игнорируемая информация интерферирует с выполняемой задачей, вызывая снижение скорости и точности ответов. Феномен Струп-интерференции рассматривается в психолингвистике как неизбежное следствие процессов порождения речи. Его объяснение дается в ряде теорий лексического доступа, обзор которых является целью настоящей работы. Приводится анализ двух групп теорий лексического доступа, обозначаемых как теории относительной активации (модель У.Ла Хейа и коллег, модель А.Роелофса и концепция Р.Абдель Рахман и А.Мелингер) и теории абсолютной активации (концепция исключения ответов и модель К.Мулатти и коллег). В теориях первой группы постулируется, что Струп-интерференция возникает на стадии отбора релевантных задаче ответов. Согласно теориям второй группы, Струп-интерференция возникает на поздних этапах переработки стимулов как результат блокировки неверно выбранных ответов. По результатам обзора делается вывод о том, что теории лексического доступа не справляются с задачей объяснения известных интерференционных феноменов. Обсуждаются пути дальнейшего развития психолингвистических теорий Струп-интерференции.
Ключевые слова:
Струп-интерференция, тест Струпа, лексический доступ, порождение речи, лексическое соревнование, психолингвистика
Скачивания
Данные скачивания пока недоступны.
Библиографические ссылки
References
MacLeod C.M. Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 1991, vol. 109, pp. 163–203.
Van Maanen L., Van Rijn H., Borst J.P. Stroop and Picture-Word Interference are Two Sides of the Same Coin. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2009, vol. 16 (6), pp. 987–999.
Starreveld P.A., La Heij W. Picture-word interference is a Stroop effect: A theoretical analysis and new empirical findings. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2017, vol. 24, pp. 721–733.
Klein G. S. Semantic power measured through the interference of words with color naming. American Journal of Psychology, 1964, vol. 177, pp. 576–588.
Geng J., Schnur T.T., Janssen N. Relative speed of processing affects interference in Stroop and picture–word interference paradigms: evidence from the distractor frequency effect. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 2013, vol. 29, pp. 1100–1114.
Rosinski R.R., Golinkoff R.M., Kukish K. S. Automatic semantic processing in a picture-word interference task. Child Development, 1975, vol. 46, pp. 247–253.
Levelt W.J.M., Roelofs A., Meyer A. S. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1999, vol. 22, pp. 1–38.
Cattell J.M. The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind, 1886, vol. 11, pp. 63–65.
Stroop J.R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1935, vol. 18, pp. 643–662.
Steinhauser M., Maier M., Hübner R. Modeling Behavioral Measures of Error Detection in Choice Tasks: Response Monitoring Versus Conflict Monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2008, vol. 34 (1), pp. 158–176.
Mulatti C., Ceccherini L., Coltheart M. What can we learn about visual attention to multiple words from the word–word interference task? Memory & Cognition, 2015, vol. 43, pp. 121–132.
Quillian M.R. Word concepts: A theory and simulation of some basic semantic capabilities. Behavioral Science, 1967, vol. 12, pp. 410–430.
Collins A.M., Loftus E.F. A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 1975, vol. 82, pp. 407–428.
Roelofs A. A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 1992, vol. 42, pp. 107–142.
Dell G. S. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 1986, vol. 3, pp. 283–321.
Melinger A., Abdel Rahman R. Lexical selection is competitive: Evidence from indirectly activated semantic associates during picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 2013, vol. 39 (2), pp. 348–364.
Coltheart M., Rastle K., Perry C., Langdon R., Ziegler J. DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 2001, vol. 108, pp. 204–256.
Mahon B.Z., Costa A., Peterson R., Vargas K.A., Caramazza A. Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2007, vol. 33, pp. 503–535.
Spalek K., Damian M.F., Bölte J. Is lexical selection in spoken word production competitive? Introduction to the special issue on lexical competition in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2013, vol. 28 (5), pp. 597–614.
Roelofs A., Piai V., Schriefers H. Context effects and selective attention in picture naming and word reading: Competition versus response exclusion. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2013, vol. 28, pp. 655–671.
Starreveld P.A., La Heij W. Time-course analysis of semantic and orthographic context effects in picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1996, vol. 22, pp. 896–918.
Bloem I., La Heij W. Semantic facilitation and semantic interference in word translation: Implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 2003, vol. 48, pp. 468–488.
Kuipers J.R., La Heij W. Semantic facilitation in category and action naming: Testing the message congruency account. Journal of Memory and Language, 2008, vol. 58, pp. 123–139.
Roelofs A. Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 2003, vol. 110, pp. 88–125.
Abdel Rahman R., Melinger A. Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2009, vol. 24, pp. 713–734.
Caramazza A. How many levels of processing are there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 1997, vol. 14, pp. 177–208.
Roelofs A., Piai V. Aspects of competition in word production: Reply to Mahon and Navarrete. Cortex, 2015, vol. 64, pp. 420–424.
Glaser M.O., Glaser W.R. Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 1982, vol. 8, pp. 875–894.
Glaser W.R., Dungelhoff F.-J. The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1984, vol. 10, pp. 640–654.
Schriefers H., Meyer A. S., Levelt W.J.M. Exploring the time course of lexical access in production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 1990, vol. 29, pp. 86–102.
Roelofs A. From Popper to Lakatos: A case for cumulative computational modeling. Ed. by A.Cutler. Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones. Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, 2005, pp. 313–330.
Roelofs A., Piai V. Aspects of competition in word production: Reply to Mahon and Navarrete. Cortex, 2015, vol. 64, pp. 420–424.
Glaser W.R., Glaser M.O. Context effects on Stroop-like word and picture processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1989, vol. 118, pp. 13–42.
Vigliocco G., Vinson D.P., Siri S. Semantic similarity and grammatical class in naming actions. Cognition, 2005, vol. 94, pp. 91–100.
De Simone F., Collina S. The Picture–Word Interference Paradigm: Grammatical Class Effects in Lexical Production. Journal of Psycholingustic Research, 2016, vol. 45 (5), pp. 1003–1019.
Lupker S.J. The semantic nature of response competition in the picture-word interference task. Memory & Cognition, 1979, vol. 7, pp. 485–495.
Goodman G. S., Haith M.M., Guttentag R.E., Rao S. Automatic processing of word meaning: Intralingual and interlingual interference. Child Development, 1985, vol. 56, 103–118.
Costa A., Caramazza A. Is lexical selection in bilingual speech production language-specific? Further evidence from Spanish-English and English-Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1999, vol. 2, pp. 231–244.
Costa A., Alario F.-X., Caramazza A. On the categorical nature of the semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. P sychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2005, vol. 12, pp. 125–131.
La Heij W., Happel B., Mulder M. Components of Stroop-like interference in word reading. Acta Psychologica, 1990, vol. 73, pp. 115–129.
Alario F.X., Segui J., Ferrand L. Semantic and associative priming in picture naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2000, vol. 53, pp. 741–764.
Roelofs A., Piai V., Schriefers H. Selective attention and distractor frequency in naming performance: Comment on Dhooge and Hartsuiker (2010). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2011, vol. 37, pp. 1032–1038.
Miozzo M., Caramazza A. When more is less: A counterintuitive effect of distractor frequency in picture — word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2003, vol. 132, pp. 228–252.
Dhooge E., Hartsuiker R.J. The distractor frequency effect in picture-word interference: Evidence for response exclusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2010, vol. 36, pp. 878–891.
Monsell S., Taylor T.J., Murphy K. Naming the color of a word: Is it responses or task sets that compete? Memory & Cognition, 2001, vol. 29, pp. 137–151.
McClelland J.L., Rumelhart D.E. An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception. Psychological Review, 1981, vol. 88, pp. 375–407.
Costa A., Mahon B., Savova V., Caramazza A. Level of categorization effect: A novel effect in the picture — word interference paradigm. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2003, vol. 18, pp. 205–233.
Dhooge E., Hartsuiker R.J. Lexical selection and verbal self-monitoring: Effects of lexicality, context, and time pressure in picture — word interference. Journal of Memory and Language, 2012, vol. 66, pp. 163–176.
Fox E. Negative priming from ignored distractors in visual selection: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1995, vol. 2, pp. 145–173.
La Heij W., Heikoop K.W., Akerboom S., Bloem I. Picture naming in picture context: Semantic interference or semantic facilitation? Psychology Science, 2003, vol. 45, pp. 49–62.
Damian M.F., Bowers J. S. Locus of semantic interference in picture — word interference tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 2003, vol. 10, pp. 111–117.
Leoncini D. I meccanismi di accesso lessicale e il paradigma di interferenza figura — figura: tesi di dottorato. Padova, 2008, 119 p.
Morsella E., Miozzo M. Evidence for a cascade model of lexical access in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2002, vol. 28, pp. 555–563.
Meyer A. S., Damian M.F. Activation of distractor names in the picture — picture interference paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 2007, vol. 35, pp. 494−503.
Treccani B., Mulatti C. Semantic effects in the word — word interference task: a comment on Roelofs, Piai, and Schriefers (2013). Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 2015, vol. 30 (6), pp. 700–703.
McNamara T.P. Theories of priming: I.Associative distance and lag. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1992, vol. 18, pp. 1173–1190.
Quillian M.R. Word concepts: A theory and simulation of some basic semantic capabilities. Behavioral Science, 1967, vol. 12, pp. 410–430.
Caramazza A., Costa A. Set size and repetition in the picture–word interference paradigm: Implications for models of naming. Cognition, 2001, vol. 80, pp. 291–298.
Roelofs A. Set size and repetition matter: Comment on Caramazza and Costa (2000). Cognition, 2001, vol. 80, pp. 283–290.
La Heij W., van den Hof E. Picture-word interference increases with target-set size. Psychological Research, 1995, vol. 58 (2), pp. 119–133.
Collina S., Tabossi P., De Simone F. Word production and the picture — word interference paradigm: The role of learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2013, vol. 42 (5), pp. 461–473.
Krebs R.M., Fias W., Achten E., Boehler C.N. Picture novelty attenuates semantic interference and modulates concomitant neural activity in the anterior cingulate cortex and the locus coeruleus. NeuroImage, 2013, vol. 74, pp. 179–187.
Roelofs A. The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production. Cognition, 1997, vol. 64, pp. 249–284.
Загрузки
Опубликован
23.04.2018
Как цитировать
Сопов, М. С. (2018). Феномен Струп-интерференции в контексте теорий лексического доступа. Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Психология, 8(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu16.2018.104
Выпуск
Раздел
Общая психология, психология личности, история психологии
Лицензия
Статьи журнала «Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Психология» находятся в открытом доступе и распространяются в соответствии с условиями Лицензионного Договора с Санкт-Петербургским государственным университетом, который бесплатно предоставляет авторам неограниченное распространение и самостоятельное архивирование.
