Departamento de Psicología Experimental y Fisiología del Comportamiento, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Conscious Cogn. 2011 Sep;20(3):745-55. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.10.024. Epub 2011 Feb 24.
We used several cue-target SOAs (100, 500, 1000 ms) and three different degrees of cue predictability (Non-predictive-50%, Predictive-75%, Counter-predictive-25%), to investigate the role of awareness of cue-target predictability on cueing effects. A group of participants received instructions about the informative value of the cue, while another group did not receive such instructions. Participants were able to extract the predictive value of a spatially peripheral cue and use it to orient attention, whether or not specific instructions about the predictive value of the cue were given, and no matter their ability to correctly report it in a post-test questionnaire. In the non-predictive block, bad estimators who received no instructions showed regular cueing effects, while good estimators exhibited smaller and non-significant facilitatory effects at the short SOA and an absence of significant IOR at longer SOAs. However, for the instructions group, the pattern of results reversed.
我们使用了几种提示-目标 SOA（100、500、1000 毫秒）和三种不同程度的提示可预测性（非预测-50%、预测-75%、反预测-25%），以研究对提示可预测性的意识在提示效应中的作用。一组参与者收到了关于提示信息价值的指令，而另一组则没有收到这样的指令。无论是否给出关于提示的预测价值的具体说明，参与者都能够提取空间外围提示的预测价值，并利用它来引导注意力，而且无论他们是否能够在后续测试问卷中正确报告提示的预测价值。在非预测性的实验条件下，没有得到提示价值信息的不良估计者表现出了常规的提示效应，而良好估计者在短 SOA 时表现出较小且不显著的促进效应，在较长 SOA 时则没有显著的内抑制效应。然而，对于有指令的实验组，结果模式发生了反转。
