Farell Bart
McGill University, Department of Psychology, 2001 McGill College Ave, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1G1, Canada.
Cogn Psychol. 2022 Feb;132:101443. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2021.101443. Epub 2021 Nov 29.
Logic and common sense say that judging two stimuli as "same" is the converse of judging them as "different". Empirically, however, 'Same'-'Different' judgment data are anomalous in two major ways. The fast-'Same' effect violates the expectation that 'Same' reaction time (RT) should be predictable by extrapolating from 'Different' RT. The criterion effect violates the expectation that RTs measured when sameness is defined by a conjunction of matching attributes should predict RTs measured when sameness is defined by a disjunction of matching attributes. The two criteria are symmetrical, yet empirically they differ greatly, disjunctive judgments being by far the slower of the two. This study sought the sources of these two effects. With the aid of a cue, a selective-comparison method deconfounded the contributions of stimulus encoding and comparisons to the two effects. The results were paradoxical. Each additional irrelevant (uncued) letter in a random string incremented RT for conjunctive judgments as much as an additional relevant letter did. Yet irrelevant letters were not compared and relevant letters had to be compared. These results appeared again in a second experiment that used words as stimuli. Contrary to intuition, a distinct comparison mechanism-the heart of relative judgment models-is not necessary in judgments of sameness and difference. It is shown here that encoding can carry out the comparison function without the operation of a separate comparison mechanism. Attention mediates the process by selecting from the set of stimulus alternatives, thereby partitioning the set into the 'Same' and 'Different' subsets. The fast-'Same' and criterion effects result from a structural limitation on what attention can select at any one time. With attention mediating the task, 'Same'-'Different' judgments become, in effect, the outcome of a testing of a hypothesis, bridging the distinction between absolute stimulus identification and relative judgments.
逻辑和常识表明,将两个刺激判断为“相同”与将它们判断为“不同”是相反的。然而,从经验上看,“相同”-“不同”判断数据在两个主要方面存在异常。快速“相同”效应违背了这样的预期,即“相同”反应时间(RT)应该可以通过从“不同”RT进行外推来预测。标准效应违背了这样的预期,即当相同性由匹配属性的合取来定义时所测量的RT应该能够预测当相同性由匹配属性的析取来定义时所测量的RT。这两个标准是对称的,但从经验上看它们差异很大,析取判断在两者中要慢得多。本研究探寻了这两种效应的根源。借助一个线索,一种选择性比较方法区分了刺激编码和比较对这两种效应的贡献。结果是自相矛盾的。在一个随机字符串中,每增加一个无关(未被提示)字母,合取判断的RT增加量与增加一个相关字母时相同。然而,无关字母并未被比较,而相关字母则必须被比较。这些结果在第二个使用单词作为刺激的实验中再次出现。与直觉相反,一种独特的比较机制——相对判断模型的核心——在相同性和差异性判断中并非必要。这里表明,编码可以在没有单独比较机制运作的情况下执行比较功能。注意力通过从刺激备选集中进行选择来介导这一过程,从而将该集合划分为“相同”和“不同”子集。快速“相同”效应和标准效应源于注意力在任何给定时间所能选择的内容上的结构限制。由于注意力介导了该任务,“相同”-“不同”判断实际上成为了一个假设检验的结果,弥合了绝对刺激识别和相对判断之间的区别。