Broerse J, Grimbeek P
Department of Psychology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia.
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1994 Mar;123(1):81-5. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.123.1.81.
One of S. Siegel, L. G. Allen, and T. Eissenberg's (1992) recent arguments in support of associative-learning explanations of colored aftereffects (CAEs) is that the contingencies underlying these effects are not constrained by simple stimulus dimensions, such as contour orientation. Specifically, the authors claim to have generated CAEs contingent on sets of spatiotopic relationships between orientation components of a pattern (as opposed to orientation components per se). The present article illustrates how Siegel et al.'s claims are compromised by their failure to adequately address the role of fixation and eye movements during CAE induction.
S. 西格尔、L. G. 艾伦和T. 艾森伯格(1992年)近期支持对颜色后效(CAEs)进行联想学习解释的论点之一是,这些效应背后的偶然性不受简单刺激维度(如轮廓方向)的限制。具体而言,作者声称已经产生了取决于图案方向成分之间一组空间位置关系的颜色后效(与方向成分本身相对)。本文说明了西格尔等人的主张是如何因他们在颜色后效诱导过程中未能充分考虑注视和眼动的作用而受到损害的。