Suppr超能文献

时间上的特征迁移:选择性注意对言语错误的反映。

Feature migration in time: reflection of selective attention on speech errors.

机构信息

Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania, and Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA.

出版信息

J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 Jul;38(4):1084-90. doi: 10.1037/a0026933. Epub 2012 Jan 23.

Abstract

This article describes an initial study of the effect of focused attention on phonological speech errors. In 3 experiments, participants recited 4-word tongue twisters and focused attention on 1 (or none) of the words. The attended word was singled out differently in each experiment; participants were under instructions to avoid errors on the attended word, to stress it, or to say it silently. The experiments showed that all methods of attending to a word decreased errors on that word, while increasing errors on the surrounding words. However, this error increase did not result from a relative increase in phonemic migrations originating from the attended word. This pattern is inconsistent with conceptualizing attention either as a higher activation of the attended word or greater inhibition of the unattended words throughout the production of the sequence. Instead, it is consistent with a model that presumes that attention exerts its effect at the time of production of the attended word, without lingering effects on the past or the future.

摘要

本文描述了一项关于集中注意力对语音言语错误影响的初步研究。在 3 项实验中,参与者背诵了 4 个单词的绕口令,并将注意力集中在 1 个(或无)单词上。在每个实验中,被关注的单词都有不同的突出方式;参与者被要求避免在被关注的单词上出错,强调它,或默默地说它。实验表明,集中注意力于一个单词的所有方法都减少了该单词的错误,同时增加了周围单词的错误。然而,这种错误增加并不是源自于受关注单词产生的相对较多的音位迁移。这种模式与将注意力概念化为受关注单词的更高激活或对整个序列产生过程中未受关注单词的更大抑制不一致。相反,它与一种假设相一致,即注意力在受关注单词的产生时发挥作用,而不会对过去或未来产生持久影响。

相似文献

1
Feature migration in time: reflection of selective attention on speech errors.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2012 Jul;38(4):1084-90. doi: 10.1037/a0026933. Epub 2012 Jan 23.
2
Error biases in inner and overt speech: evidence from tongue twisters.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 Jan;37(1):162-75. doi: 10.1037/a0021321.
3
The prosodic domain of phonological encoding: Evidence from speech errors.
Cognition. 2018 Aug;177:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.03.004. Epub 2018 Mar 31.
4
The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 Jul;28(4):735-47. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.28.4.735.
5
Ingressive speech errors: a service evaluation of speech-sound therapy in a child aged 4;6.
Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2017 Jul;52(4):479-488. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12287. Epub 2016 Nov 27.
6
Describing Phonological Paraphasias in Three Variants of Primary Progressive Aphasia.
Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018 Mar 1;27(1S):336-349. doi: 10.1044/2017_AJSLP-16-0210.
8
Saying thirteen instead of forty-two but saying lale instead of tale: is number production special?
Cortex. 2020 Jul;128:281-296. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2020.03.020. Epub 2020 Apr 8.
10
Derivational morphophonology: exploring errors in third graders' productions.
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2009 Jul;40(3):299-311. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461(2008/08-0006). Epub 2008 Oct 24.

引用本文的文献

1
Remembering conversation in group settings.
Mem Cognit. 2024 Sep 5. doi: 10.3758/s13421-024-01630-8.
2
Characterizing multi-word speech production using event-related potentials.
Psychophysiology. 2021 May;58(5):e13788. doi: 10.1111/psyp.13788. Epub 2021 Feb 10.
3
Verbal Working Memory as Emergent from Language Comprehension and Production.
Front Hum Neurosci. 2020 Mar 12;14:68. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00068. eCollection 2020.
4
Novel stress phonotactics are learnable by English speakers: Novel tone phonotactics are not.
Mem Cognit. 2020 Feb;48(2):176-187. doi: 10.3758/s13421-019-01000-9.
5
"Twisting fingers": The case for interactivity in typed language production.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Aug;25(4):1449-1457. doi: 10.3758/s13423-018-1452-7.
6
Planning and production of grammatical and lexical verbs in multi-word messages.
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 1;12(11):e0186685. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186685. eCollection 2017.
7
The effects of anodal stimulation of the left prefrontal cortex on sentence production.
Brain Stimul. 2014 Nov-Dec;7(6):784-92. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2014.07.035. Epub 2014 Jul 23.
8
The exception does not rule: attention constrains form preparation in word production.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014 May;40(3):797-810. doi: 10.1037/a0035576. Epub 2014 Feb 17.
9
More attention when speaking: does it help or does it hurt?
Neuropsychologia. 2013 Nov;51(13):2770-80. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.08.019. Epub 2013 Sep 4.

本文引用的文献

1
Naming and repetition in aphasia: Steps, routes, and frequency effects.
J Mem Lang. 2010 Nov 1;63(4):541-559. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2010.08.001.
2
A new multiword naming deficit: Evidence and interpretation.
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2002 May 1;19(3):263-88. doi: 10.1080/02643290143000187.
3
A peripheral reading deficit under conditions of diffuse visual attention.
Cogn Neuropsychol. 2001 Sep;18(6):551-76. doi: 10.1080/02643290042000242.
4
Developmental attentional dyslexia.
Cortex. 2010 Nov-Dec;46(10):1216-37. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2010.06.012. Epub 2010 Jul 8.
5
Inner speech slips exhibit lexical bias, but not the phonemic similarity effect.
Cognition. 2008 Jan;106(1):528-37. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.006. Epub 2007 Apr 2.
6
Neural mechanisms of transient and sustained cognitive control during task switching.
Neuron. 2003 Aug 14;39(4):713-26. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(03)00466-5.
7
Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: modeling attentional control in the Stroop task.
Psychol Rev. 2003 Jan;110(1):88-125. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.110.1.88.
8
Paying attention to reading errors in acquired dyslexia.
Trends Cogn Sci. 2002 Sep 1;6(9):359. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)01950-2.
10
What the eyes say about speaking.
Psychol Sci. 2000 Jul;11(4):274-9. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00255.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验