内隐空间词汇加工中的空间促进和干扰效应
Spatial Facilitation and Interference Effects during the Processing of Implicitly Spatial Words
摘要: 语言理解是人类所特有的认知方式，研究发现，个体在加工具有空间意义的内隐空间词汇时会表现出空间干扰效应或空间促进效应。具身认知观、极性一致原则以及事件编码理论分别从不同的角度对空间干扰效应和空间促进效应进行了解释。实证研究还发现，启动线索与目标间的时间间隔、任务类型、不同类别的空间词汇、知识经验和社会因素等都可能对空间效应产生影响，并发现词汇–空间效应可能与空间注意转移有关。在系统介绍空间效应的理论假设和影响因素的基础上，对三个理论假设的适用性、影响因素的作用机制等进行了分析和适度推测，并提出了今后的研究方向。
Abstract: Language comprehension is a specific cognitive ability in human beings. It has been found that individuals display spatial interference effects or spatial facilitation effects when processing implicit spatial words with spatial meaning. The spatial interference effect and the spatial facilitation effect were explained from different perspectives by the embodied cognition view, the polar consistency principle and the event coding theory. The empirical study also found that the time interval between the priming cue and the target, the type of task, different types of spatial words, knowledge and experience, and social factors may have an impact on the spatial effect, and found that the word-space effect may be related to the spatial attention shift. Based on the systematic introduction of the theoretical assumptions and influencing factors of spatial effect, the applicability of the three theoretical assumptions and the mechanism of the influencing factors are analyzed and moderately speculated, and the future research direction is proposed.
文章引用：贾丽娜 (2024). 内隐空间词汇加工中的空间促进和干扰效应. 心理学进展, 14(3), 466-473. https://doi.org/10.12677/ap.2024.143181

参考文献

[1] 武向慈, 王恩国(2014). 权力概念加工对视觉空间注意定向的影响: 一个ERP 证据. 心理学报, 46(12), 1871-1879.
[2] 殷融, 苏得权, 叶浩生(2013). 具身认知视角下的概念隐喻理论. 心理科学进展, 21(2), 220-234.
[3] Amer, T., Gozli, D. G., & Pratt, J. (2017). Biasing Spatial Attention with Semantic Information: An Event Coding Approach. Psychological Research, 3, 1-19.
[4] Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[5] Bergen, B. K., Lindsay, S., Matlock, T., & Narayanan, S. (2007). Spatial and Linguistic Aspects of Visual Imagery in Sentence Comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 733-764.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Chasteen, A. L., Burdzy, D. C., & Pratt, J. (2010). Thinking of God Moves Attention. Neuropsychologia, 48, 627-630.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[7] Cho, Y. S., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Stimulus and Response Representations Underlying Orthogonal Stimulus-Response Compatibility Effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 45-73.[CrossRef] 
[8] Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2014). Principles of Representation: Why You Can’t Represent the Same Concept Twice. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 390-406.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[9] Daniël, L. (2011). High Skies and Oceans Deep: Polarity Benefits or Mental Simulation? Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 21.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[10] Dudschig, C., Lachmair, M., la Vega, I., De Filippis, M., & Kaup, B. (2012). From Top to Bottom: Spatial Shifts of Attention Caused by Linguistic Stimuli. Cognitive Processing, 13, 151-154.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[11] Dudschig, C., Souman, J., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I., & Kaup, B. (2013). Reading “Sun” and Looking Up: The Influence of Language on Saccadic Eye Movements in the Vertical Dimension. PLOS ONE, 8, e56872.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[12] Dudschig, C., Vega, I. D. L., Filippis, M. D., & Kaup, B. (2014). Language and Vertical Space: On the Automaticity of Language Action Interconnections. Cortex, 58, 151-160.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[13] Estes, Z., Verges, M., & Adelman, J. S. (2015). Words, Objects, and Locations: Perceptual Matching Explains Spatial Interference and Facilitation. Journal of Memory & Language, 84, 167-189.[CrossRef] 
[14] Estes, Z., Verges, M., & Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Head Up, Foot Down: Object Words Orient Attention to the Objects’ Typical Location. Psychological Science, 19, 93-97.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[15] Francken, J. C., Meijs, E. L., Hagoort, P., Van Gaal, S., & De Lange, F. P. (2015). Exploring the Automaticity of Language-Perception Interactions: Effects of Attention and Awareness. Scientific Reports, 5, Article No. 17725.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16] Frings, C., & Rothermund, K. (2011). To Be or Not to Be. Included in an Event File: Integration and Retrieval of Distractors in Stimulus-Response Episodes Is Influenced by Perceptual Grouping. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory & Cognition, 37, 1209-1227.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[17] Frings, C., Moeller, B., & Rothermund, K. (2013). Retrieval of Event Files Can Be Conceptually Mediated. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 75, 700-709.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[18] Gao, X., & Jiang, T. (2018). Sensory Constraints on Perceptual Simulation during Sentence Reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44, 848-855.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[19] Giesen, C., Frings, C., & Rothermund, K. (2012). Differences in the Strength of Distractor Inhibition Do Not Affect Distractor-Response Bindings. Memory & Cognition, 40, 373-387.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20] Gozli, D. G., Chasteen, A. L., & Pratt, J. (2013). The Cost and Benefit of Implicit Spatial Cues for Visual Attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 142, 1028-1046.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[21] Gozli, D. G., Jay, P., Zoë, M. K., & Chasteen, A. L. (2016). Implied Spatial Meaning and Visuospatial Bias: Conceptual Processing Influences Processing of Visual Targets and Distractors. PLOS ONE, 11, e0150928.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[22] Hommel, B. (2004). Event Files: Feature Binding in and Across Perception and Action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494-500.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[23] Hommel, B. (2005). How Much Attention Does An Event File Need? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1067-1082.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[24] Hommel, B., Memelink, J., Zmigrod, S., & Colzato, L. S. (2014). Attentional Control of the Creation and Retrieval of Stimulus-Response Bindings. Psychological Research, 78, 520-538.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[25] Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The Reviewing of Object Files: Object-Specific Integration of Information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175-219.[CrossRef] 
[26] Lachmair, M., Fernández, S. R., & Gerjets, P. (2016). Priming Effects Between Spatial Meaning of Verbs and Numbers Are Modulated by Time Intervals: Early Interference and Late Facilitation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1-18.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[27] Louwerse, M. (2011). Stormy Seas and Cloudy Skies: Conceptual Processing Is (Still) Linguistic and Perceptual. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 105.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[28] Meteyard, L., & Vigliocco, G. (2009). Verbs in Space: Axis and Direction of Motion Norms for 299 English Verbs. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 565-574.[CrossRef] 
[29] Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2014). Attention Meets Binding: Only Attended Distractors Are Used for the Retrieval of Event Files. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 959-978.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[30] Ostarek, M., & Vigliocco, G. (2017). Reading Sky and Seeing A Cloud: on the Relevance of Events for Perceptual Simulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 579-590.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[31] Ostarek, M., Ishag, A., Joosen, D., & Huettig, F. (2018). Saccade Trajectories Reveal Dynamic Interactions of Semantic and Spatial Information during the Processing of Implicitly Spatial Words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 44, 1658-1670.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[32] Pecher, D., Van Dantzig, S., Boot, I., Zanolie, K., & Huber, D. E. (2010). Congruency Between Word Position and Meaning Is Caused by Task-Induced Spatial Attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, Article 30.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[33] Peleg, O., Ozer, R., Norman, T., & Segal, O. (2018). Perceptual Simulations during Sentence Comprehension: A Comparison between Typical Adolescents and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 45, 36-44.[CrossRef] 
[34] Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity Correspondence: A General Principle for Performance of Speeded Binary Classification Tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416-442.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[35] Salillas, E., Yagoubi, R. E., & Semenza, C. (2008). Sensory and Cognitive Processes of Shifts of Spatial Attention Induced by Numbers: An ERP Study. Cortex, 44, 460-413.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[36] Stephan, D. L. R., Choudhery, R. N., & Chatziastros, A. (2011). Visual Object Detection, Categorization, and Identification Tasks Are Associated with Different Time Courses and Sensitivities. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 38-47.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[37] Van Dantzig, D. S., & Pecher, D. (2011). Spatial Attention Is Driven by Mental Simulations. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 40.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[38] Vogel, E. K., & Luck, S. J. (2000). The Visual N1 Component as an Index of a Discrimination Process. Psychophysiology, 37, 190-203.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[39] Wilson, M. (2002). Six Views of Embodied Cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625-636.[CrossRef] 
[40] Zanolie, K., Dantzig, S. V., Boot, I., Wijnen, J., Schubert, T. W., Giessner, S. R. et al. (2012). Mighty Metaphors: Behavioral and ERP Evidence That Power Shifts Attention on a Vertical Dimension. Brain and Cognition, 78, 50-58.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[41] Zhang, E., Luo, J., Zhang, J., Wang, Y., Zhong, J., & Li, Q. (2013). Neural Mechanisms of Shifts of Spatial Attention Induced by Object Words with Spatial Associations: An ERP Study. Experimental Brain Research, 227, 199-209.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[42] Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Experiential Traces and Mental Simulations in Language Comprehension. In M. DeVega, A. M. Glenberg, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Symbols and Embodiment (pp. 165-180). Oxford University Press.[CrossRef] 
[43] Zwaan, R. A. (2014). Embodiment and Language Comprehension: Reframing the Discussion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 229-234.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[44] Zwaan, R. A., & Madden, C. J. (2005). Embodied Sentence Comprehension. In D. Pecher, & R. A. Zwaan (Eds.), The Grounding of Cognition: The Role of Perception and Action in Memory, Language and Thinking (pp. 224-245). Cambridge University Press.[CrossRef] 
[45] Zwaan, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2003). Spatial Iconicity Affects Semantic Relatedness Judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 954-958.[CrossRef]