請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/25674完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 葉怡玉 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Rou Chen | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 陳柔 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-08T06:24:10Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2011-08-08 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2011-08-03 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Bahrami, B., Lavie, N., & Rees, G. (2007). Attentional load modulates responses of human primary visual cortex to invisible stimuli. Current Biology, 17, 509-513.
Baylis, G. C., & Driver, J. (1992). Visual parsing and response competition: The effect of grouping factors. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 51, 145-162. Belopolsky, A. V., Zwaan, L., Theeuwes, J., & Kramer, A. F. (2007). The size of an attentional window modulates attentional capture by color singletons. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 934-938. Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon.. Cartwright-Finch, U., & Lavie, N. (2007). The role of perceptual load in inattentional blindness. Cognition, 102, 321-340. Castiello, U., & Umilta, C. (1990). Size of the attentional focus and efficiency of processing. Acta Psychologica, 73, 195-209. Deutsch, J. A., & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some Theoretical Considerations. Psychological Review, 70, 80-90. Eltiti, S., Wallace, D., & Fox, E. (2005). Selective target processing: Perceptual load or distractor salience? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 67, 876-885. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 16, 143-149. Eriksen, C. W., & St. James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 40, 225-240. Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2008). Failures to ignore entirely irrelevant distractors: The role of load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 73-83. Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2009). Harnessing the wandering mind: The role of perceptual load. Cognition, 111, 345-355. Hung, G. K., Wilder, J., Curry, R., & Julesz, B.(1995). Simultaneous better than sequential for brief presentations. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 12, 441-449. Ibos, G., Duhamel, J. R., & Hamed, S. B. (2009). The spatial and temporal deployment of voluntary attention across the Visual Field. PLoS ONE, 4, e6716. Johnson, D. N., McGrath, A., & McNeil, C. (2002). Cuing interacts with perceptual load in visual search. Psychological Science, 13, 284-287. Kahneman, D., & Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 29–61). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. (1992). The reviewing of object files: object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175-219. LaBerge, D. (1983). Spatial extent of attention to letters and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 371-379. Lachter, J., Forster, K. I., & Ruthruff, E. (2004). Forty-five years after Broadbent (1958): Still no identification without attention. Psychological Review, 111, 880-913. Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 451-468. Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75-82. Lavie, N., & Cox, S. (1997). On the efficiency of visual selective attention: Efficient visual search leads to inefficient distractor rejection. Psychological Science, 8, 395-396. Lavie, N., & Fox, E. (2000). The role of perceptual load in negative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1038-1052. Lavie, N., & Torralbo, A. (2010). Dilution: A theoretical burden or just load? A Reply to Tsal and Benoni (2010). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1657-1664. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527. Macdonald, J. S. P., & Lavie, N. (2008). Load induced blindness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1078-1091. Marciano, H., & Yeshurun, Y. (2011). The effects of perceptual load in central and peripheral regions of the visual field. Visual Cognition, 19, 1-25. Miller, J. (1987). Priming is not necessary for selective-attention failures: Semantic effects of unattended, unprimed letters. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 41, 419-434. Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 226-254. Norman, D. A. (1968). Toward a theory of memory and attention. Psychological Review, 75, 522-536. Paquet, L., & Craig, G. L. (1997). Evidence for selective target processing with a low perceptual load flankers task. Memory & Cognition, 25, 182-189. Rees, G., Frith, C. D., & Lavie, N. (1997). Modulating irrelevant motion perception by varying attentional load in an unrelated task. Science, 278, 1616-1619. Rees, G., Russell, C., Frith, C. D., & Driver, J. (1999). Inattentional blindness versus inattentional amnesia for fixated but ignored words. Science, 286, 2504-2507. Snyder, C. R. (1972). Selection, inspection, and naming in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 92, 428-431. Sperling, G. (1960). The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychology Monographs: General and Applied,74, 1-29. Sperling, G., & Reeves, A. (1980). Measuring the reaction time of a shift of visual attention. In R. Nickerson, (Ed.), Attention and Performance VIII (pp. 347–360). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Theeuwes, J., Atchley, P., & Kramer, A. F. (2000). On the time course of top-down and bottom-up control of visual attention. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and Performance XVIII (pp. 105-124). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., & Belopolsky, A. V. (2004). Attentional set interacts with perceptual load in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 697-702. Treisman, A. M. (1960). Contextual cues in selective listening. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 242-248. Treisman, A. M., & Riley, J. G. (1969). Is selective attention selective perception or selective response? A further test. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 27-34. Tsal, Y., & Benoni, H. (2010a). Diluting the burden of load: Perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1645-1656. Tsal, Y., & Benoni, H. (2010b). Much dilution little load in Lavie and Torralbo's (2010) response: A reply. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1665-1668. Von Wright, J. (1970). On selection in visual immediate memory. Acta Psychologica, 33, 280-292. Wilson, D., Muroi, M., & MacLeod, C. (2011). Dilution, not load, affects distractor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 319-335. Yantis, S., & Jones, E. (1991). Mechanisms of attentional selection: Temporally modulated priority tags. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 50, 166-178. Yi, D. J., Woodman, G. F., Widders, D., Marois, R., & Chun, M. M. (2004). Neural fate of ignored stimuli: dissociable effects of perceptual and working memory load. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 992-996. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/25674 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | Tsal與Benoni（2010a）提出稀釋假說（dilution hypothesis），主張早期視覺刺激間的稀釋效果是干擾訊息進入晚期反應選擇歷程與否的關鍵條件。而Lavie與Torralbo（2010）則主張與目標刺激之間的知覺組織（perceptual grouping）也會影響干擾訊息的處理歷程。本研究主張兩種假說在稀釋效應（dilution effect）裡不必然會得到互斥的結果，注意力控制（attentional control）會在其中扮演調控的角色。當注意力控制效率高，注意力控制便可以調控知覺組織對目標作業的影響，排除干擾刺激進入晚期反應選擇歷程。而當注意力控制效率低，干擾刺激便可以進入晚期反應選擇歷程。本研究以四個實驗驗證注意力控制假說。實驗一重覆驗證Tsal與Benoni（2010a）實驗一a的研究，以檢驗在注意力控制效率高的情境下，是否會出現相容性效果（compatibility effect）。實驗二（將刺激呈現時間縮短為50毫秒）、實驗三（將刺激排列方式改為環狀）及實驗四（增加干擾刺激位置的不確定性）分別以不同方式降低注意力控制的效率，以檢驗在注意力控制效率低的情境下，是否不會出現相容性效果。四個實驗皆符合預期，注意力控制的效率可以調控干擾訊息的處理歷程。本研究統整知覺負荷量理論與稀釋假說的主張，可擴展我們對選擇注意力機制的了解。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-08T06:24:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-100-R98227108-1.pdf: 478347 bytes, checksum: 970cd4aeef12894db4c4bca6b2451022 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄
第一章 緒論 1 第一節 知覺負荷量理論 3 第二節 稀釋效應 6 第三節 注意力容量溢出假說 8 第四節 呈現時間、注意力範圍、以及干擾刺激位置的不確定性 14 第五節 實驗目的與設計 18 第二章 實驗一 20 方法 20 實驗參與者 20 刺激材料與程序 20 實驗設計 22 結果 22 討論 24 第三章 實驗二 26 方法 26 實驗參與者 26 刺激材料、程序與實驗設計 26 結果 27 討論 28 第四章 實驗三 31 方法 31 實驗參與者 31 刺激材料、程序與實驗設計 31 結果 32 討論 34 第五章 實驗四 36 方法 36 實驗參與者 36 刺激材料、程序與實驗設計 36 結果 37 討論 39 第六章 跨實驗比較 40 第七章 綜合討論 42 第一節 注意力容量溢出假說 43 第二節 兩階段模式假說 45 第三節 研究限制與未來方向 46 參考文獻 47 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 知覺組織 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 注意力控制 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 相容性效果 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 稀釋效應 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | compatibility effect | en |
| dc.subject | attentional control | en |
| dc.subject | perceptual load | en |
| dc.subject | dilution effect | en |
| dc.title | 選擇注意力如何影響干擾訊息的處理歷程？探討注意力控制在稀釋效應裡扮演的角色 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | How Selective Attention Affects Distractor Processing? The role of Attentional Control in Dilution Effect | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 99-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 何明洲,黃揚名 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 稀釋效應,知覺組織,注意力控制,相容性效果, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | dilution effect,perceptual load,attentional control,compatibility effect, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 53 | |
| dc.rights.note | 未授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2011-08-03 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 理學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 心理學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 心理學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-100-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 467.14 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。