Leber Andrew B, Gwinn Rachael E, Hong Yoolim, O'Toole Ryan J
Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, 225 Psychology Building, 1835 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
Department of Biology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.
Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Dec;23(6):1873-1881. doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1065-y.
How do we ignore a salient, irrelevant stimulus whose location is predictable? A variety of studies using instructional manipulations have shown that participants possess the capacity to exert location-based suppression. However, for the visual search challenges we face in daily life, we are not often provided explicit instructions and are unlikely to consciously deliberate on what our best strategy might be. Instead, we might rely on our past experience-in the form of implicit learning-to exert strategic control. In this paper, we tested whether implicit learning could drive spatial suppression. In Experiment 1, participants searched displays in which one location contained a target, while another contained a salient distractor. An arrow cue pointed to the target location with 70 % validity. Also, unbeknownst to the participants, the same arrow cue predicted the distractor location with 70 % validity. Results showed facilitated RTs to the predicted target location, confirming target enhancement. Critically, distractor interference was reduced at the predicted distractor location, revealing that participants used spatial suppression. Further, we found that participants had no explicit knowledge of the cue-distractor contingencies, confirming that the learning was implicit. In Experiment 2, to seek further evidence for suppression, we modified the task to include occasional masked probes following the arrow cue; we found worse probe identification accuracy at the predicted distractor location than control locations, providing converging evidence that observers spatially suppressed the predicted distractor locations. These results reveal an ecologically desirable mechanism of suppression, which functions without the need for conscious knowledge or externally guided instructions.
我们如何忽略一个位置可预测的显著但不相关的刺激呢？各种使用指导性操作的研究表明，参与者具备施加基于位置抑制的能力。然而，对于我们在日常生活中面临的视觉搜索挑战，我们通常不会得到明确的指示，也不太可能有意识地思考我们的最佳策略可能是什么。相反，我们可能会依靠过去的经验——以隐性学习的形式——来施加策略控制。在本文中，我们测试了隐性学习是否能驱动空间抑制。在实验1中，参与者搜索这样的显示画面：一个位置包含目标，而另一个位置包含一个显著的干扰项。一个箭头线索以70%的有效性指向目标位置。此外，参与者不知道的是，同样的箭头线索以70%的有效性预测干扰项的位置。结果显示，对预测的目标位置反应时缩短，证实了目标增强。关键的是，在预测的干扰项位置干扰项的干扰减少了，这表明参与者使用了空间抑制。此外，我们发现参与者对线索与干扰项的关联性没有明确的认识，这证实了学习是隐性的。在实验2中，为了寻求抑制的进一步证据，我们修改了任务，使其在箭头线索之后偶尔包含掩蔽探测；我们发现，在预测的干扰项位置，探测识别准确性比对照位置更差，这提供了趋同的证据，表明观察者在空间上抑制了预测的干扰项位置。这些结果揭示了一种符合生态需求的抑制机制，其运作无需有意识的知识或外部指导的指令。
