J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 Jan;39(1):313-6. doi: 10.1037/a0028473.
In their comment, Roelofs, Piai, and Schriefers (2011) argue against our interpretation of the distractor frequency effect in terms of a late blocking mechanism. They state that the experiments reported by Dhooge and Hartsuiker (2010) can be incorporated in WEAVER++ when assuming an early input blocking mechanism. We first rectify a misunderstanding regarding the claim of the target article. Next, we show that Roelofs et al. provide no evidence that allows differentiating between early and late blocking accounts. We end by providing evidence in favor of our claim that distractor blocking occurs late and specify our blocking account in terms of verbal self-monitoring.
在他们的评论中，Roelofs、Piai 和 Schriefers（2011）反对我们根据晚期阻断机制来解释分心物频率效应的观点。他们指出，Dhooge 和 Hartsuiker（2010）的实验可以在假设早期输入阻断机制的情况下被纳入 WEAVER++。我们首先纠正了对目标文章主张的误解。接下来，我们表明，Roelofs 等人没有提供任何证据可以区分早期和晚期阻断理论。最后，我们提供了支持我们的观点的证据，即分心物阻断发生在晚期，并根据言语自我监控来具体说明我们的阻断理论。
