臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

過去對於遮蔽促發典範中的一致性效果有三種不同的解釋架構。自我抑制假說與遮蔽物引發抑制假說主張正向與負向一致性效果來自於動作層次。物件更新假說則主張正向與負向一致性效果來自於促發項與遮蔽物之間知覺交互作用後產物所致，即此假說主張一致性效果來自於知覺層次。但目前三種假說均只能部份解釋一致性效果的現象，且均忽略了促發項與目標物之間知覺相似性可能造成的影響。故本研究提出一致性效果為作用於知覺與動作兩層次力量加成後的現象，且知覺層次的力量由促發項與目標物之間知覺相似性所產生，並進行四個實驗驗證。實驗一藉由操弄遮蔽物相關性與呈現時差發現，一致性效果確實有可能受到上述兩層次力量影響的可能，且來自知覺層次的力量是由促發項與目標物之間知覺相似性所提供。實驗二藉由延長呈現時差發現，一致性效果隨呈現時差成 U 型曲線變化，此可能為來自動作層次力量影響的證據。實驗三與實驗四則進一步探討促發項與目標物之間知覺相似性在一致性效果中所扮演的角色。結果顯示，促發項不符合作業設定時，可影響一致性效果，另外，破壞了知覺相似性後，正向一致性效果減弱但卻不影響負向一致性效果。綜合以上研究結果，促進力量來自於知覺與動作層次，而僅動作層次提供了抑制的力量。

Positive and negative compatibility effect, in the masked priming paradigm, had been discovered over ten years, but the locus of them still remaining debated. Self-inhibition and mask-triggered inhibition hypothesis assume that compatibility effects reflect activation and inhibition from our motor system. Object-updating hypothesis propose that compatibility effects come from perceptual level, which is the perception interaction of prime and mask. But, all of these hypotheses cannot provide fully explanation and they have never taken the similarity between prime and target into account. Perhaps, the compatibility effects located at the perceptual level, and the motor level as well. The main goal of the present study was to investigate the loci of the positve and negative compatibility effect. The results of experiment 1 and 2 showed the possibility of that compatibility effects may arise from perceptual and motor level. Besides, the perceptual influence was the result of perceptual similarity between prime and target. In the experiment 3 and 4, as disrupted the similarity between prime and target, the positive compatibility effect became smaller but it had no impact on negative compatibility effect. These findings suggest that compatibility effects are the phenomenon, which reflect not only motor activation and inhibition, but also facilitation from perceptual processing.

緒論 1
實驗典範與一致性效果 2
遮蔽促發實驗典範（masked priming paradigm） 2
一致性效果及相關研究結果 3
一致性效果的解釋架構 6
自我抑制假說（self-inhibition hypothesis） 6
物件更新假說（object-updating hypothesis） 11
遮蔽物引發抑制假說（mask-triggered inhibition） 13
小結 15
核心議題 17
研究目的 19
實驗一 24
前導實驗 34
前導實驗 A 34
前導實驗 B 37
前導實驗 C 39
實驗二 43
實驗二 A 43
實驗二 B 50
實驗三 59
實驗三 A 59
實驗三 B 65
實驗四 73
實驗四 A 73
實驗四 B 83
綜合討論 94
各假說的再探討 95
自我抑制假說 95
物件更新假說 96
遮蔽物引發抑制假說 98
其它可能的解釋 99
知覺層次 99
動作層次 101
研究限制與未來發展 101
參考文獻 104

Bar, M, & Biederman, I. (1998). Subliminal visual priming. Psychological Science, 9, 464-469.
Bentley, P., Vuilleumier, P., Thiel, C. M., Driver, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2003). Effects of Attention and emotion on repetition priming and their modulation by cholinergic Enhancement. Journal of Neurophysiology, 90, 1171-1181.
Bodner, G., & Dypvik, A. (2005). Masked priming of number judgments depends on prime validity and task. Memory & Cognition, 33, 29-47.
Driver, J., Davis, G., Ricciardelli, P., Kidd, P., Maxwell, E., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting. Visual Cognition. 6, 509-504.
Eimer, M. (1999). Facilitatory and inhibitory effects of masked prime stimuli on motor activation and behavioural performance. Acta psychologica, 101, 293-313.
Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (1998). Effect of masked stimuli on motor activation: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1737-1747.
Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (2002). Links between conscious awareness and response inhibition: Evidence from masked priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 514-520.
Friesen, C. K. (2002). Attentional effects of gaze direction. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 3049.
Forster, K. I., & Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 116-124.
Jaśkowski, P. (2007). The effect of nonmasking distractors on the priming of motor responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 456-468.
Jaśkowski, P., & Przekoracka-Krawczyk, A. (2005). On the role of mask structure in subliminal priming. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 65, 409-417.
Jaśkowski, P., & Przekoracka-Krawczyk, A. (2007). Perceptual learning can reverse subliminal priming effects. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 558-566.
Jaśkowski, P., & Ślósarek, M. (2007). How important is a prime's gestalt for subliminal priming? Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 485-497.
Jaśkowski, P., & Verleger, R. (2007). What determines the direction of subliminal priming. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 181-192.
Kanwisher, N.G. (1987). Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 30-47.
Kanwisher, N.G., & Potter, M. C. (1990). Repetition blindness: Level pf processing . Cognitive, 27, 117-143.
Kiesel, A., Berner, M. P., & Kunde, W. (2008). Negative congruency effects: A test of the inhibition account. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 1-21.
Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., & Hoffmann, J. (2007). Mechanisms of subliminal response priming. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 307-315.
Klapp, S. T., & Hinkley, L. B. (2002). The negative compatibility effect: Unconscious inhibition influences reaction time and response selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131, 255-269.
Klapp, S. T., & Haas B. W (2005). Nonconscious influence of masked stimuli on response selection is limited to concrete stimulus-response associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 193-209.
Klapp, S. T., & Hinkley, L. B. (2005). Two version of the negative compatibility effect: Comment on Lleras and Enns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 431-435.
Kuhn, G., & Kingstone, A. (2009). Look away! Eyes and arrow engage oculomotor responses automatically. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 314-327.
Lleras, A., & Enns, J. T. (2004). Negative compatibility or object updating? A cautionary tale of mask-dependent priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 475-493.
Lleras, A., & Enns, J. T. (2005). Updating a cautionary tale of masked priming: Reply to Klapp(2005). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 436-440.
Lleras, A., & Enns., J. T. (2006). How much like a target can a mask be? Geometric, spatial, and temporal similarity in priming: A reply to Schlaghecken and Eimer (2006). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 495-500.
Lingnau, A., & Vorberg, D. (2005). The time course of response inhibition in masked priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 545-557.
Mattler, U. (2005). Inhibition and decay of motor and nonmotor priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 285-300.
Merikle, M. P., Smilek, D., & Eastwood, J. D. (2001). Perception without awareness: Perspectives from cognitive psychology. Cognition, 79, 115-134.
Przekoracka-Krawczyk, A., & Jaśkowski, P. (2007). Perceptual learning can reverse subliminal priming effects. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 558-566.
Ristic, J., Friesen, C. K., & Kingstone, A. (2002). Are eyes special? It depends on how you look at it. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 507-513.
Sternberg, R., J. (2003). Cognitive Psychology (3rd ed.).Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Sumner, P. (2007). Negative and positive masked-priming - implications for motor inhibition. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 317-326.
Sumner, P. (2008). Mask-induced priming and the negative compatibility effect.
Experimental Psychology, 55, 133-141.
Schlaghecken, F., Blagrove, E., & Maylor, E. A. (2006). No difference between conscious and nonconscious visuomotor control: Evidence from perceptual learning in the mask prime task. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 84-93.
Schlaghecken, F., Blagrove, E., & Maylor, E. A. (2007). Incidental learning of S-R contingencies in the masked prime task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1177-1188.
Schlaghecken, F., Blagrove, E., & Maylor, E. A. (2008). No difference between conscious and nonconscious visuomotor control: Evidence from perceptual learning in the masked prime task. Consciousness & Cognition, 17, 84-93.
Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (2000). A central-peripheral asymmetry in masked priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 1367-1382.
Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (2002). Motor activation with and without inhibition: Evidence for a threshold mechanism in motor control. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 148-162.
Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (2004). Masked prime stimuli can bias “free” choices between response alternatives. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 463-468.
Schlaghecken, F., & Eimer, M. (2006). Active masks and active inhibition: A comment on Lleras and Enns (2004) and Verleger, Jaśkowski, Aydemir, van der Lubbe, and Groen (2004). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 484-494.
Schlaghecken, F., Klapp, S., & Maylor, E. (2009). Either or neither, but not both: locating the effects of masked primes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276, 515-521.
Schlaghecken, F., & Maylor, E. A. (2005). Motor control in old age: Evidence of impaired low-level inhibition. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 60, 158-161.
Schlaghecken, F., Rowley, L., Sembi, S., Simmons, R., & Whitcomb, D. (2007). The negative compatible effect: A case for self-inhibition. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3, 227-240.
Schlaghecken, F., & Sisman, R. (2006). Low-level motor inhibition in children: Evidence from the negative compatibility effect. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 2, 7-19.
Sumner, P., & Brandwood, T. (2008). Oscillations in motor priming: Positive rebound follows the inhibitory phase in the masked prime paradigm. Journal of Motor Behavior, 40, 484-489.
Tipples, J. (2002). Eye gaze is not unique: Automatic orienting in response to uninformative arrows. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 314-318.