Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Mem Cognit. 2013 Feb;41(2):229-41. doi: 10.3758/s13421-012-0255-8.
There are many instances in which perceptual disfluency leads to improved memory performance, a phenomenon often referred to as the perceptual-interference effect (e.g., Diemand-Yauman, Oppenheimer, & Vaughn (Cognition 118:111-115, 2010); Nairne (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14:248-255, 1988)). In some situations, however, perceptual disfluency does not affect memory (Rhodes & Castel (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 137:615-625, 2008)), or even impairs memory (Glass, (Psychology and Aging 22:233-238, 2007)). Because of the uncertain effects of perceptual disfluency, it is important to establish when disfluency is a "desirable difficulty" (Bjork, 1994) and when it is not, and the degree to which people's judgments of learning (JOLs) reflect the consequences of processing disfluent information. In five experiments, our participants saw multiple lists of blurred and clear words and gave JOLs after each word. The JOLs were consistently higher for the perceptually fluent items in within-subjects designs, which accurately predicted the pattern of recall performance when the presentation time was short (Exps. 1a and 2a). When the final test was recognition or when the presentation time was long, however, we found no difference in recall for clear and blurred words, although JOLs continued to be higher for clear words (Exps. 2b and 3). When fluency was manipulated between subjects, neither JOLs nor recall varied between formats (Exp. 1b). This study suggests a boundary condition for the desirable difficulty of perceptual disfluency and indicates that a visual distortion, such as blurring a word, may not always induce the deeper processing necessary to create a perceptual-interference effect.
在许多情况下,知觉不流畅会导致记忆表现的提高,这种现象通常被称为知觉干扰效应(例如,Diemand-Yauman、Oppenheimer 和 Vaughn(Cognition 118:111-115, 2010);Nairne(Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14:248-255, 1988))。然而,在某些情况下,知觉不流畅不会影响记忆(Rhodes 和 Castel(Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 137:615-625, 2008)),甚至会损害记忆(Glass,(Psychology and Aging 22:233-238, 2007))。由于知觉不流畅的效果不确定,因此确定何时不流畅是一种“期望的困难”(Bjork,1994),何时不是,以及人们的学习判断(JOLs)反映处理不流畅信息的后果的程度非常重要。在五个实验中,我们的参与者观看了多组模糊和清晰的单词,并在每个单词后给出了 JOLs。在 within-subjects 设计中,知觉流畅的项目的 JOLs 始终更高,这准确地预测了呈现时间较短时的回忆表现模式(实验 1a 和 2a)。然而,当最后的测试是识别或呈现时间较长时,我们发现清晰和模糊单词的回忆没有差异,尽管 JOLs 仍然对清晰单词更高(实验 2b 和 3)。当在 between-subjects 中操纵流畅性时,格式之间的 JOLs 和回忆都没有差异(实验 1b)。这项研究为知觉不流畅的期望困难提供了一个边界条件,并表明,像模糊一个单词这样的视觉扭曲可能并不总是会引起必要的更深层次的处理,从而产生知觉干扰效应。