回想和熟悉性编码与提取机制的研究

发布时间：2017-12-28 14:19

本文关键词：回想和熟悉性编码与提取机制的研究　出处：《福建师范大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：回想和熟悉性的关系一直是认知心理学研究的热点。回想指再认测验中被试表现为“记得”的项目,它是对学习过的项目的一些特定信息的提取：而再认测验中表现为“知道”项目则反映为熟悉性,它是对学习过的项目和测验的项目整体相似性进行评估,是在缺乏来源信息的条件下产生的似曾相识感觉(Yonelinas,2002)。目前,回想和熟悉性的分离还存在着争议,但争议的主要焦点在于研究二者关系时没有排除内隐记忆对它们的影响。其次,以往的研究者更多是集中在提取阶段研究回想和熟悉性ERPs勺关系,从编码阶段探究二者关系的研究偏少,同样从编码和提取的关系去探讨二者成分的研究也很少。因此,本文中利用ERP技术,在去除内隐记忆对回想和熟悉性的影响后,再进一步探讨二者的编码与提取的加工机制。实验一采用DM范式和迫选再认范式并结合图词转化设计从而排除内隐记忆对回想和熟悉性的干扰。根据被试的随后测试反馈,把学习阶段有效地分成三种类别：选择旧词并表明自信度为记住的项目(回想),选择旧词并表明自信度为知道的项目(熟悉性),迫于任务要求而选择词并表明自信度为猜测的项目(忘记)。结果表明在提取阶段是有发现回想和熟悉性不同的神经生理差异,二者在ERP上是分离的。编码阶段也发现了回想和熟悉性的分离。回想的DM效应是表现在激活脑区的ERP正走向：500-700ms的前额区与300-700ms额区、300-700ms的中央区、200-400ms的顶区以及200-700ms的颞区；熟悉性的DM效应则是主要表现在200-300ms的中央区交互效应和200-300ms、500-700ms的颞区的正走向。实验证明了回想与熟悉性是两种不同的加工过程,二者在均保持自己独立的神经生理特性。实验二则在DM范式和迫选再认范式下,利用图片刺激去研究回想和熟悉性的关系。同样根据被试的随后测试反馈,把学习阶段有效地分成三种类型：回想、熟悉性和忘记。研究结果表明,在提取阶段得到了回想后期大范围的ERP激活,熟悉性则主要表现在额区的激活。在编码阶段同样也得到了回想和熟悉性DM差异。回想的DM效应是表现在大范围的后期时段的ERP正走向：300-1000ms的前额区与额区、500～1000ms的中央区以及600～1000ms的颞区；熟悉性的DM效应则是主要表现在500-700ms的中央区ERP正走向和400-500ms顶区的交互作用。实验二的结果表明回想和熟悉性保持各自的神经生理机制。从编码和提取的关系对回想和熟悉性进行分析,发现回想的编码和提取存在着对称性关系,而熟悉性的编码与提取存在着非对称关系。这表明回想和熟悉性不是量的差异,而是质的区别,二者是相互独立的加工过程。
[Abstract]:The relationship between recollection and familiarity has always been a hot spot in cognitive psychology. Recall that in the recognition test subjects to "remember", it is to extract some specific information on learning projects: the recognition test is in the form of "know" project reflects the familiar, it is similar in overall evaluation of the items and test items that is in the lack of source of information under the condition of deja vu (Yonelinas, 2002). At present, there are still controversies on the separation of recall and familiarity, but the main focus of the dispute is that the study of the relationship between the two does not exclude the effect of implicit memory on them. Secondly, most of the previous researchers focused on the relationship between recall and familiarity ERPs spoon in the extraction stage. From the coding stage, the research on the relationship between the two was relatively limited. From the relationship between coding and extraction, there were few studies on the two components. Therefore, in this paper, using ERP technology, after removing the influence of implicit memory on recall and familiarity, this paper further explores the processing mechanism of the encoding and extraction of the two. In Experiment 1, the DM paradigm and the forced selection paradigm were used in conjunction with the transformation design to eliminate the interference of implicit memory to recall and familiarity. Then according to the feedback test subjects, the learning phase is effectively divided into three categories: the old words and show confidence to remember the project (in retrospect), select the old words and show confidence to know the project (familiar), forced the task requirements and choice of words and show that confidence for the project (guess Wang Ji). The results showed that in the extraction stage, there were different neurophysiological differences in the discovery of recall and familiarity, and the two were separated on ERP. The coding phase also found the separation of recall and familiarity. Recall that DM effect is reflected in the brain activation of ERP is to: 500-700ms 300-700ms and 300-700ms frontal frontal area, central area, 200-400ms area and 200-700ms top temporal region; familiar with the DM effect is mainly manifested in the central region is moving toward the interaction effect and 200-300ms, 200-300ms 500-700ms of the temporal region. The experiment proved that recall and familiarity were two different processing processes, and the two had their own independent neurophysiological characteristics. In experiment two, the relationship between recall and familiarity was studied by using picture stimulation under the DM paradigm and the forced election recognition paradigm. According to the subsequent test feedback, the learning stage is effectively divided into three types: recall, familiarity and forgetting. The results showed that ERP activation at the late stage of recall was obtained in the stage of extraction, and the familiarity was mainly expressed in the activation of the frontal area. There is also the DM difference between the recall and the familiarity in the coding phase. The DM effect is back in the late session in a large range of ERP is to: the forehead area and the frontal area, 300-1000ms 500 ~ 1000ms and 600 ~ 1000ms central temporal region; familiar with the DM effect is mainly manifested in the interaction of 500-700ms and 400-500ms ERP are central to the top of the district. The results of experiment two showed that both recollection and familiarity maintained their respective neurophysiological mechanisms. From the relationship between encoding and extraction, we can see that there is symmetry between recall and recognition, and there is asymmetric relationship between encoding and extraction. This shows that recall and familiarity are not the difference in quantity, but the difference in quality. The two are the independent process of each other.
【学位授予单位】：福建师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：B842.3

【参考文献】