Tan Yingying, Martin Randi C, Van Dyke Julie A
Department of Psychology, Rice University Houston, TX, USA.
Haskins Laboratories New Haven, CT, USA.
Front Psychol. 2017 Feb 15;8:198. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00198. eCollection 2017.
This study investigated the nature of the underlying working memory system supporting sentence processing through examining individual differences in sensitivity to retrieval interference effects during sentence comprehension. Interference effects occur when readers incorrectly retrieve sentence constituents which are similar to those required during integrative processes. We examined interference arising from a partial match between distracting constituents and syntactic and semantic cues, and related these interference effects to performance on working memory, short-term memory (STM), vocabulary, and executive function tasks. For online sentence comprehension, as measured by self-paced reading, the magnitude of individuals' syntactic interference effects was predicted by general WM capacity and the relation remained significant when partialling out vocabulary, indicating that the effects were not due to verbal knowledge. For offline sentence comprehension, as measured by responses to comprehension questions, both general WM capacity and vocabulary knowledge interacted with semantic interference for comprehension accuracy, suggesting that both general WM capacity and the quality of semantic representations played a role in determining how well interference was resolved offline. For comprehension question reaction times, a measure of semantic STM capacity interacted with semantic but not syntactic interference. However, a measure of phonological capacity (digit span) and a general measure of resistance to response interference (Stroop effect) did not predict individuals' interference resolution abilities in either online or offline sentence comprehension. The results are discussed in relation to the multiple capacities account of working memory (e.g., Martin and Romani, 1994; Martin and He, 2004), and the cue-based retrieval parsing approach (e.g., Lewis et al., 2006; Van Dyke et al., 2014). While neither approach was fully supported, a possible means of reconciling the two approaches and directions for future research are proposed.
本研究通过考察句子理解过程中对检索干扰效应敏感性的个体差异,探究了支持句子处理的潜在工作记忆系统的本质。当读者错误地检索出与整合过程中所需成分相似的句子成分时,就会产生干扰效应。我们研究了干扰成分与句法和语义线索之间部分匹配所产生的干扰,并将这些干扰效应与工作记忆、短期记忆(STM)、词汇和执行功能任务的表现联系起来。对于通过自定步速阅读来衡量的在线句子理解,个体句法干扰效应的大小由一般工作记忆容量预测,在排除词汇因素后,这种关系仍然显著,这表明这些效应并非源于语言知识。对于通过对理解问题的回答来衡量的离线句子理解,一般工作记忆容量和词汇知识都与语义干扰相互作用,影响理解准确性,这表明一般工作记忆容量和语义表征的质量在决定离线时干扰解决的程度方面都发挥了作用。对于理解问题的反应时间,这是一种语义STM容量的衡量指标,它与语义干扰而非句法干扰相互作用。然而,语音容量的衡量指标(数字广度)和对反应干扰的一般抵抗力衡量指标(斯特鲁普效应)在在线或离线句子理解中都无法预测个体的干扰解决能力。我们将结合工作记忆的多种容量理论(例如,Martin和Romani,1994;Martin和He,2004)以及基于线索检索解析方法(例如,Lewis等人,2006;Van Dyke等人,2014)来讨论这些结果。虽然这两种方法都没有得到充分支持,但我们提出了一种调和这两种方法的可能途径以及未来研究的方向。