中央执行负荷对成人估算策略运用的影响  

The Effect of Central Executive Load on Adult's Strategy Using in Computational Estimation

作　　者：司继伟[1] 杨佳[1] 贾国敬[1] 周超[1] 

机构地区：[1]山东师范大学心理学院,济南250014

出　　处：《心理学报》2012年第11期1490-1500,共11页Acta Psychologica Sinica

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究项目基金(批准号:09YJAXLX014);山东省自然科学基金项目(批准号:ZR2010CM059)资助;山东省强化建设重点学科"发展与教育心理学"专项经费资助

摘　　要：随机选取128名大学生为被试,运用选择/无选法研究范式,考察了不同中央执行负荷对估算策略运用的影响。结果发现:(1)中央执行负荷不影响策略分布;(2)策略运用条件、中央执行负荷影响策略执行。主次一致任务,负荷对策略执行反应时的影响随负荷强度增大而增大,对策略执行精确度影响不大;而对主次不一致任务,低负荷对策略执行反应时及精确度影响都不明显;(3)策略运用条件、中央执行负荷影响策略选择。负荷强度对策略选择反应时起重要作用,只有当次级任务负荷高时,干扰作用才明显;(4)成人的策略选择适应性受负荷强度的影响。无负荷条件下个体策略适应性更好。Many models on strategy choosing in arithmetic cognition have been proposed, however, the role of central executive load in strategy utilization is still far from clear. A previous research with the Choice Reaction Time task （CRT） found that working memory load didn＇t affect children＇s strategy utilization （Imbo ＆ Vandierendonck, 2007）. In another study, Logie, Gilhooly and Wynn （1994） reported that different sub-tasks affected mental arithmetic. More recent studies also revealed that the inhibition and shifting capacities mediated age-related differences in strategy selection （Lemaire ＆ Lecacheur, 2011; Hodzik ＆ Lemaire, 2011）. Dual-task paradigm is commonly utilized in exploring working memory load in arithmetic performance, and the choice/no-choice is a standard method to obtain unbiased data about strategy utilization. In this study, we employed the dual-task paradigm and choice/no-choice method to investigate the influence of central executive load upon individual strategy utilization during arithmetic processing. 128 college students were tested by the dual-task paradigm and choice/no-choice method. They were asked to finish a two-digit addition computational estimate and a secondary task at the same time. The experimental design was as following： 5 （consistent -high load, consistent -low load, inconsistent -high load, inconsistent -low load, no load） x 4 （free-choice condition, best-strategy choice condition, no-choice/rounding-up condition, no-choice/rounding-down condition）. The main task was to finish 30 two-digit addition questions, and the secondary task was Han and Kim＇s （2004） design with some modifications. Results showed that： 1） Central executive load did not affect adult＇s strategy distribution. But comparing with free-choice condition, adults used less rounding-down strategy under the best -strategy choice condition （F（4,123） = 0.58, p〉 0.05）; 2） Central executive load affected how participants selected （F（4,123） = 11.10, p 〈

关 键 词：中央执行负荷 估算 策略运用 选择 无选法 

分 类 号：B842[哲学宗教—基础心理学]