習慣化、原則化和自動化認知歷程與腦側化的關系及其對簡單乘法加法作業和黑藍圓點相加作業的影響

The Effects of Habituation, Learned Rules, and Laterality on Antomaticity

林清山(Chen-Shan Lin)

《教育心理學報》 22期 (1989/05) Pp. 99-114

https://doi.org/10.6251/BEP.19890601.4

摘要

本研究的目的有三：(1)考驗是不是愈高度練習過的認知歷程會因習慣化或原則化之故，其認知作業的反應時間愈短；(2)考驗是不是自動化認知作業因可節省反應時間及注意容量之故，其反應正確率高於非自動化認知作業的反應正確率；(3)探討是不是右腦較左腦擅於自動化處理，而左腦則較右腦擅於控制的處理。利用「視野控制法」在曝露時間為180 msec和呈現視角為2°至6°的條件下，讓受試者經由四視域速示器處理簡單乘決、簡單加法和黑藍圓點相加等作業。受試者大聲說出答案時，實驗者記下反應的正誤，並利用voice key等設備記錄自呈現刺激至反應為止的反應時間。參加實驗的受試者是40名大學二年級學生。實驗結果發現：
順序乘法的反應時間最短，非順序乘法的反應時間次之，順序加法的反應時間最長；顯示愈習慣化者反應時間愈短。又，原則化加法題的反應時間顯然短於非原則化加法題的反應時間；顯示有原則可循的加法作業，其反應時間較短。研究一第一部分和第二部分的這些結果可支持「愈高度練習過的認知技能因習慣化或原則化之故，該項認知作業之反應時間較短」的說法。
(二)「黑、藍圓點相加題」的黑色圓點之方陣階數愈大，其反應正確率愈小二顯示訊息愈多佔用愈多注意容量和傳遞管道。又，黑、藍圓點相加題五種題目類型之問的反應正確率雖然有顯著差異存在，但並不是以「正正題」的反應正確率為最高；顯示並不是黑色圓點及藍色圓點都是以方陣排列，其運算便能因自動化而不佔用管道。研究二的這些研究暗示：「自動化」可能是程度上的差異，而不是「控制的處理」與「自動化處理」兩個截然不同類別之間的差異。
(三)右腦對簡單乘法的反應時問並未快於左腦對乘法的反應時間，倒是右腦對於簡單加法的反應時間快於左腦對簡單加法的反應時間。左右腦與黑藍圓點作業之間亦無交互作用效果存在。這些結果無法支持「右腦較左腦擅於自動化處理，而左腦則較右腦擅於控制的處理」之說法。

並列摘要

Materials designed to test the roles of habituation, learned rules, and automaticity were tachistoscopically presented to both the left and the right-visual field of 40 college studens through visuat half-field presentation. The findings were as follows:
(1) The reaction time (RT) was significantly shorter when items of single column multiplication were presented orderly according to the multiplication table than when they were presented randomly. The RT was shorter when items of single column multiplicalion were presented randomly than when items of sigle column addition were presented randomly. Thus, the more a cognitive process has been praticed or habitualized, the shorter the RT will be. Habitualization is supposed to be an importomt variable which might facilitate automaticity.
(2) The RT to the items of single column addition for which the subjects may use certain kinds of learned rules was significantly shorter than the RT to those for which they may not use learned rules. The availability of learned rules is also supposed to be an important variable which might facilitate automaticity.
(3) Since 2×2=4, 3×3=5, 4×4=16, were so highly procticed, it was assumed that to count dots arranged in a form of square matrix had become an automatic process, therefore little attention was reguired for such a process. Accordingly, it was predicted that the accuracy rate for items with both black dots and blue dots arranged in square matrices was higher than that for item in which both sets of dots was not arranged in square matrix, when subjects were asked to cound and add these two set of dots. The hypothesis was not supported by experimental evidence. Results also tended to support the idea that antomaticity is a matter of degree rather than of a well-defined category (automatic processing vs. controlled processing).
(4) No predicted interaction effects between laterality and types of cognitive task was found. The assumption that ”Left hemisphere is superior to right hemisphere in controlled processing, while right hemisphere is superior to left hemisphere in automatic processing” was not supported.