博碩士論文 972207005 詳細資訊




以作者查詢圖書館館藏 以作者查詢臺灣博碩士 以作者查詢全國書目 勘誤回報 、線上人數:17 、訪客IP:44.200.77.92
姓名 韓一中(Yi-Jhong Han)  查詢紙本館藏   畢業系所 認知與神經科學研究所
論文名稱 登錄作業對於中文雙字詞語意透明度在再認記憶中所引發鏡像效應之影響:行為及事件相關腦電位實驗
(The modulation of encoding task type on the mirror effect in recognition memory for semantically transparent and opaque Chinese words: Behavioral and ERP studies)
相關論文
★ 意旁結合度、意旁表意透明度對中文閱讀的影響★ 以行為及事件相關電位探討中文雙字詞的記憶聯結錯誤
★ 項目指示遺忘效果的行為與事件相關電位研究★ 項目指示遺忘作業中記憶登錄及提取歷程的行為及事件相關腦電位研究
★ 以語意促發作業探討項目指示遺忘中線索對於記憶登錄歷程影響之行為及事件相關腦電位研究★ 特定與非特定來源記憶提取的行為及事件相關腦電位
★ 以行為及事件相關腦電位探討處理層次與聯結性登錄方式對記憶連結錯誤之影響★ 中文字詞辨識的語音運作單位
★ 由語意透明度所引發的再認記憶鏡像效應:行為與事件相關腦電位研究★ 以事件相關腦電位探討細節性與概要性記憶的提取導向
★ 以行為及事件相關腦電位實驗探討前瞻記憶線索出現機率對於前瞻干擾效果的影響★ 以跨顱電刺激與事件相關腦電位探討左側後頂葉腦區於再認記憶中所扮演之角色
★ 測驗表現回饋對測驗效應之調控的行為與事件相關腦電位研究★ 以非侵入式腦刺激探討左後側頂葉與情節記憶提取之因果關係
★ 中文假字形聲限制高低對於試誤與無誤學習之影響的行為與事件相關腦電位研究★ 情緒入碼情境對於記憶登錄與提取中的控制歷程之影響
檔案 [Endnote RIS 格式]    [Bibtex 格式]    [相關文章]   [文章引用]   [完整記錄]   [館藏目錄]   [檢視]  [下載]
  1. 本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
  2. 已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
  3. 請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。

摘要(中) 本研究檢驗由語意透明度所引發的再認記憶鏡像效應之中,對於語意不透明詞及語意透明詞的再認表現如何受到不同類型的記憶登錄作業調節,並藉此探討不透明詞擁有較佳再認記憶表現的原因。實驗一使用具體度判斷作為登錄作業,結果發現受試者對不透明詞仍然展現較佳的正確再認率及較多的「記得」反應,顯示在學習階段二者處理深度的不同無法完全解釋不透明詞再認表現較佳的現象。實驗二採用透明度判斷作為登錄作業。結果透明詞不論新舊,皆比不透明詞引起較多的「舊」及「記得」反應,表示不透明詞的再認記憶優勢已經被此種強調部件意義及其與全詞意義一致性的作業削弱。實驗三採用與實驗二相同的實驗設計,並紀錄受試者進行再認時的腦電波。結果發現不論透明詞或不透明詞引發大小相當的左側頂葉新舊效果及中額葉區新舊效果,而且此二效果的分布狀況不因語意透明度高低而有所不同,這樣的結果不支持提取透明詞與不透明詞時的神經來源有所不同。由於前述實驗的正確再認率非常高,因此實驗四延長學習階段與測驗階段之間的時距,藉以排除實驗二及三的結果為天花板效應。實驗五測量受試者在不同登錄作業下,對透明詞及不透明詞記憶難易程度的主觀評量。結果發現受試者在使用詞彙判斷做為登錄作業的情況下,主觀評定不透明詞比透明詞容易記憶;然而在受試者採用透明度判斷做為登錄作業時,主觀評定的記憶難易度在二類詞之間則沒有差異。此結果表示在語意透明度引起的鏡像效應中,由於受試者根據記憶難易度對不透明詞採用比較嚴格的決斷標準,因此比起透明詞有較低的錯誤再認比率。本研究根據以上結果,指出不透明詞的記憶優勢及引發較多的回想歷程(recollection)來自於全詞意義及部件意義的不一致性,然而此優勢可藉由使受試者在登錄時專注在部件意義的方式削弱。
摘要(英) This study investigated the mirror effect in recognition memory for semantic transparency: why semantically opaque words are better remembered than transparent ones. To examine whether the recognition advantage for opaque words results from a more elaborative encoding processing in comparison to that for transparent ones, the types of encoding tasks were manipulated among the experiments. Experiment 1 employed concreteness judgments as the encoding task. The hit rate and the proportion of “Remember” response remained to be higher for opaque words than for transparent ones. These results indicated that the elaborative encoding processing on the opaque words cannot fully account for the recognition advantage of these words. A transparency judgment task was employed as the encoding task in Experiment 2. Both old and new transparent words elicited more “old” r and “Remember” responses than opaque words. The results suggested that the recognition advantage of opaque words was decreased by the encoding task that demanded participants to process the meanings of each constituent. In the encoding task of transparency judgment, the representations of the transparent words might have been marked because of the consistency between the meanings of the transparent words and their constituents. These words might therefore be better remembered than opaque ones. Experiment 3 employed a similar procedure of Experiment 2, during which ERPs were recorded at test. Both transparent and opaque words showed reliable mid-frontal and left-parietal effects. The magnitudes and the topographic distributions of these two effects were not differed by transparent words and opaque words. The ERP data revealed no evidence that there are non-overlapping neural substrates underlying the retrievals of semantically transparent and opaque words. The hit rates for both kinds of words were high (above 90%) in Experiments 2 and 3, leading to the concerns of ceiling effects. The possibility was excluded in Experiment 4 by deferring the test phase to one day after the study phase, which resulted in lower but equivalent hit rates for both types of words. By measuring the subjective memorability of transparent and opaque words following different encoding conditions, Experiment 5 revealed that the false-alarm portion of the semantic transparency mirror effect was a consequence of criterion shifting. Participants tend to adopt a more stringent criterion for opaque words than that for opaque words when lexical decision was employed as the encoding task. In sum, the results of the five experiments suggest that the incongruence between the meanings of opaque words and their constituents resulted in the better recognition performance and greater recollection than transparent words. However, this advantage can be decreased when the encoding task emphasized the processing of the meanings of the individual constituents of both transparent and opaque words.
關鍵字(中) ★ 鏡像效應
★ 語意透明度
★ 事件相關腦電位
★ 再認記憶
關鍵字(英) ★ recognition memory
★ mirror effect
★ semantic transparency
★ event-related potentials
論文目次 摘要 i
Abstract iii
致謝 v
Table of Contents vii
List of Figures x
List of Tables xii
1. Introduction 1
1-1. The mirror effect in recognition memory 2
1-2. Single-process account for mirror effect 3
1-3. Dual-process account for mirror effect 9
1-4. The disagreement between single- and dual-process models 13
1-5. Event-related potentials and recognition memory 16
2. Research Aim 22
2-1. Semantic transparency 22
2-2. Previous study on semantic transparency mirror effect 23
3. Overview of the experiments conducted in this thesis 25
4. Experiment 1 27
4-1. Method 27
4-2. Results 32
4-3. Discussion 38
5. Experiment 2 40
5-1. Method 41
5-2. Results 42
5-3. Discussion 47
6. Experiment 3 49
6-1. Method 50
6-2. Results 53
6-3. Discussion 62
7. Experiment 4 65
7-1. Method 66
7-2. Results 67
7-3. Discussion 71
8. Experiment 5A and 5B 73
8-1. Method 75
8-2. Results 78
8-3. Discussion 84
9. General Discussion 86
9-1. Experimental Findings 86
9-2. Further Directions 94
9-3. Conclusions 96
References 97
Appendix A: The instruction of concreteness judgment 102
Appendix B: The instruction of “Remember/Know” procedure 103
Appendix C: The instruction of transparency judgment 104
Appendix D: The instruction of lexical decision task 105
Appendix E: The instruction of subjective memorability rating 106
參考文獻 Anderson, N. D., Craik, F. I. M., & Naveh-Benjamin, M. (1998). The attentional demands of encoding and retrieval in younger and older adults: 1. Evidence from divided attention costs. Psychology & Aging, 13(3), 405-423.
Atkinson, R. C., & Juola, J. F. (1974). Search and decision process in recognition memory. In Ed. D. H. Krantz, R. C. Atkinson, & R. D. Luce. Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology: Vol. 1. Learning, memory and thinking (pp. 243-293).
Azimian-Faridani, N., & Wilding, E. L. (2006). The influence of criterion shifts on electrophysiological correlates of recognition memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(7), 1075-1086.
Benjamin, A. S. (2003). Predicting and postdicting the effects of word frequency on memory. Memory & Cognition, 31(2), 297-305.
Brown, J., Lewis, V., & Monk, A. (1977). Memorability, word frequency and negative recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29(3), 461-473.
Bruno, D., Higham, P. A., & Perfect, T. J. (2009). Global subjective memorability and the strength-based mirror effect in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 37(6), 807-818.
Cary, M., & Reder, L. M. (2003). A dual-process account of the list-length and strength-based mirror effects in recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(2), 231-248.
Cortese, M. J., Watson, J. M., Wang, J., & Fugett, A. (2004). Relating distinctive orthographic and phonological processes to episodic memory performance. Memory & Cognition, 32(4), 632-639.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
Dobbins, I. G., Khoe, W., Yonelinas, A. P., & Kroll, N. E. A. (2000). Predicting individual false alarm rates and signal detection theory: A role for remembering. Memory & Cognition, 28(8), 1347-1356.
Dobbins, I. G., & Kroll, N. E. A. (2005). Distinctiveness and the recognition mirror effect: Evidence for an item-based criterion placement heuristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 31(6), 1186-1198.
Donaldson, W. (1996). The role of decision processes in remembering and knowing. Memory & Cognition, 24(4), 523-533.
Duzel, E., Yonelinas, A. P., Mangun, G. R., Heinze, H. J., & Tulving, E. (1997). Event-related brain potential correlates of two states of conscious awareness in memory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 94(11), 5973-5978.
Fliessbach, K., Weis, S., Klaver, P., Elger, C. E., & Weber, B. (2006). The effect of word concreteness on recognition memory. Neuroimage, 32(3), 1413-1421.
Gardiner, J. M. (1988). Functional-Aspects of Recollective Experience. Memory & Cognition, 16(4), 309-313.
Gardiner, J. M., Gawlik, B., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (1994). Maintenance rehearsal affects knowing not remembering: elaborative rehearsal affects remembering not knowing. Psychological Bulletin & Review, 1, 107-110.
Gardiner, J. M., & Java, R. I. (1990). Recollective Experience in Word and Nonword Recognition. Memory & Cognition, 18(1), 23-30.
Gardiner, J. M., & Java, R. I. (1991). Forgetting in recognition memory with and without recollective experience. Memory & Cognition, 19(6), 617-623.
Gardiner, J. M., & Parkin, A. J. (1990). Attention and recollective experience in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 18(6), 579-583.
Gardiner, J. M., Ramponi, C., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (1998). Experiences of remembering, knowing, and guessing. Consciousness and Cognition, 7(1), 1-26.
Gardiner, J. M., Ramponi, C., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (2002). Recognition memory and decision processes: a meta-analysis of remember, know, and guess responses. Memory, 10(2), 83-98.
Gillund, G., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1984). A Retrieval Model for Both Recognition and Recall. Psychological Review, 91(1), 1-67.
Glanc, G. A., & Greene, R. L. (2007). Orthographic neighborhood size effects in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 35(2), 365-371.
Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1985). The Mirror Effect in Recognition Memory. Memory & Cognition, 13(1), 8-20.
Glanzer, M., & Adams, J. K. (1990). The Mirror Effect in Recognition Memory - Data and Theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 16(1), 5-16.
Glanzer, M., Adams, J. K., Iverson, G. J., & Kim, K. (1993). The Regularities of Recognition Memory. Psychological Review, 100(3), 546-567.
Guttentag, R., & Carroll, D. (1998). Memorability judgments for high- and low-frequency words. Memory & Cognition, 26(5), 951-958.
Heathcote, A., Ditton, E., & Mitchell, K. (2006). Word frequency and word likeness mirror effects in episodic recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 34(4), 826-838.
Hintzman, D. L., Caulton, D. A., & Curran, T. (1994). Retrieval constraints and the mirror effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(2), 275-289.
Hirshman, E., & Master, S. (1997). Modeling the conscious correlates of recognition memory: Reflections on the remember-know paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 25(3), 345-351.
Huang, S.-C. (2009). Behavioral and ERP Studies of the Recognition Memory Mirror Effect induced by Semantic Transparency. Master's thesis of National Central University, Jhong Li, Taiwan.
Jacoby, L. L., & Dallas, M. (1981). On the relationship between autobiographical memory and perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 110(3), 306-340.
Joordens, S., & Hockley, W. E. (2000). Recollection and familiarity through the looking glass: When old does not mirror new. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 26(6), 1534-1555.
Juola, J. F., Fischler, I., Wood, C. T., & Atkinson, R. C. (1971). Recognition time for information stored in long-term memory. Perception & Psychophysics, 10(1), 8-14.
Libben, G. (1998). Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: Consequences for representation, processing, and impairment. Brain and Language, 61(1), 30-44.
Libben, G., Gibson, M., Yoon, Y. B., & Sandra, D. (2003). Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language, 84(1), 50-64.
Malmberg, K. J., Steyvers, M., Stephens, J. D., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2002). Feature frequency effects in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 30(4), 607-613.
Marschark, M., & Hunt, R. R. (1989). A Reexamination of the Role of Imagery in Learning and Memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 15(4), 710-720.
Perfect, T. J., Mayes, A. R., Downes, J. J., & VanEijk, R. (1996). Does context discriminate recollection from familiarity in recognition memory? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section a-Human Experimental Psychology, 49(3), 797-813.
Rajaram, S. (1993). Remembering and knowing: two means of access to the personal past. Memory & Cognition, 21(1), 89-102.
Rajaram, S. (1996). Perceptual effects on remembering: Recollective processes in picture recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 22(2), 365-377.
Rajaram, S. (1998). The effects of conceptual salience and perceptual distinctiveness on conscious recollection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5(1), 71-78.
Rajaram, S., & Geraci, L. (2000). Conceptual fluency selectively influences knowing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(4), 1070-1074.
Rugg, M. D., & Curran, T. (2007). Event-related potentials and recognition memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(6), 251-257.
Rugg, M. D., Mark, R. E., Walla, P., Schloerscheidt, A. M., Birch, C. S., & Allan, K. (1998). Dissociation of the neural correlates of implicit and explicit memory. Nature, 392(6676), 595-598.
Rugg, M. D., Walla, P., Schloerscheidt, A. M., Fletcher, P. C., Frith, C. D., & Dolan, R. J. (1998). Neural correlates of depth of processing effects on recollection: evidence from brain potentials and positron emission tomography. Experimental Brain Research, 123(1-2), 18-23.
Rugg, M. D., & Yonelinas, A. P. (2003). Human recognition memory: a cognitive neuroscience perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 313-319.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of Measuring Recognition Memory - Applications to Dementia and Amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology-General, 117(1), 34-50.
Stretch, V., & Wixted, J. T. (1998). On the difference between strength-based and frequency-based mirror effects in recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 24(6), 1379-1396.
Tulving, E. (1983). Ecphoric Processes in Episodic Memory. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 302(1110), 361-371.
Tulving, E. (1985). Memory and consciousness. Canadian Psychology, 26(1), 1-12.
Wilding, E. L., Doyle, M. C., & Rugg, M. D. (1995). Recognition memory with and without retrieval of context: an event-related potential study. Neuropsychologia, 33(6), 743-767.
Wilding, E. L., & Rugg, M. D. (1996). An event-related potential study of recognition memory with and without retrieval of source. Brain, 119, 889-905.
Wixted, J. T. (1992). Subjective Memorability and the Mirror Effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 18(4), 681-690.
Woodruff, C. C., Hayama, H. R., & Rugg, M. D. (2006). Electrophysiological dissociation of the neural correlates of recollection and familiarity. Brain Research, 1100, 125-135.
Yonelinas, A. P. (1994). Receiver-Operating Characteristics in Recognition Memory: Evidence for a Dual-Process Model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1341-1354.
Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The Nature of Recollection and Familiarity: A Review of 30 Years of Research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(3), 441-517.
Yonelinas, A. P., Dobbins, I., Szymanski, M. D., Dhaliwal, H. S., & King, L. (1996). Signal-Detection, Threshold, and Dual-Process Models of Recognition Memory: ROCs and Conscious Recollection. Consciousness and Cognition, 5(4), 418-441.
Yonelinas, A. P., Kroll, N., Dobbins, I., Lazzara, M., & Knight, R. (1998). Recollection and Familiarity Deficits in Amnesia: Convergence of Remember-Know, Process Dissociation, and Receiver Operating Characteristic Data. Neuropsychology, 12(3), 323-339.
Yonelinas, A. P., Otten, L. J., Shaw, K. N., & Rugg, M. D. (2005). Separating the brain regions involved in recollection and familiarity in recognition memory. Journal of Neuroscience, 25(11), 3002-3008.
李佳穎. (1995). 漢語組合詞與成語詞在心理辭典中的表徵方式. 國立中正大學心理學研究所碩士論文,嘉義,台灣.
指導教授 鄭仕坤(Shih-kuen Cheng) 審核日期 2010-7-6
推文 facebook   plurk   twitter   funp   google   live   udn   HD   myshare   reddit   netvibes   friend   youpush   delicious   baidu   
網路書籤 Google bookmarks   del.icio.us   hemidemi   myshare   

若有論文相關問題,請聯絡國立中央大學圖書館推廣服務組 TEL:(03)422-7151轉57407,或E-mail聯絡  - 隱私權政策聲明