Abstract
Introduction. Many cognitive phenomena can be justifiably interpreted as manifestations of contextual mediation: word superiority effects, priming effects, attitudinal effects, contextual memory effects, and so on. A separate area of research is the study of contextual interactions. In the present work, the aim was to identify congruence and dissociation effects in the interaction of short-term and ultra-short-term semantic contexts. Methods. The sample (121 subjects) was divided into four experimental and one control group. The procedure included five blocks of tasks. Participants were required to solve 15 anagrams (three tasks in each block). The short-term context was given by a sequence of words, which were the solutions to the anagrams. After the third anagram in each block, a prime - a word that either semantically matched the short-term context (congruence condition) or did not match it (dissociation condition) - was presented for 40 msec. After the mask, a target task was demonstrated - "complementing the base of the word to the whole". Conditions differed between groups according to congruence/dissociation of contexts and relevance/irrelevance to the solution. Results. Relevance and congruence conditions significantly reduced target task completion time. The effect was also evident in the reduced time of contextually related responses compared to the solution alternatives. In context dissociation conditions, there was a reduction in the strength of the effect of contextual interaction. Discussion. Contextual interactions have two main types: co-operation, and rivalry. Based on temporal stability, we can differentiate ultra-short-term, short-term, and long-term contexts. Their co-operation or competition defines the longitudinal type of interaction. The transversal type should include the interaction of simultaneously given contexts. The study took into account the types of interaction of the longitudinal type, as well as semantic "relevance/irrelevance" to the task solution. The main result of the experiment can be considered the establishment of the effect of contextual additivity. The prospect of research may be the study of contextual interaction of different kinds and types.
References
Агафонов, А. Ю. (2007). Когнитивная психомеханика сознания, или как сознание неосознанно принимает решение об осознании (2-е изд.). ИД «Бахрах-М».
Аллахвердов, В. М. (2021). Законы последействия. В Собрание сочинений в 7 томах: Т. 2. Сознание как парадокс (экспериментальная психологика) (с. 662–674). «Владимир Даль».
Аллахвердов, В. М. (2015). Как сознание выбирает одно значение из многих возможных? Петербургский психологический журнал, 13, 1–13.
Арбекова, О. А. (2016). Влияние установок на формирование зрительного образа в условиях инверсии. Москва.
Бехтель, Э. Е., & Бехтель, А. Э. (2005). Контекстуальное опознание. Питер.
Брунер, Дж. (1977). Психология познания. За пределами непосредственной информации (К. И. Бабицкий, пер. с англ.). Москва: Прогресс.
Вербицкий, А. А. (2005). Контекст (в психологии). В А. В. Петровский (ред.), Психологический лексикон. Энциклопедический словарь: в 6 томах (Т. 1, с. 137–138). ПЕР СЭ.
Дункер, К. (1965). Психология продуктивного (творческого) мышления. В А. М. Матюшкин (ред.), Психология мышления: сборник переводов с немецкого и английского (с. 86–234). Прогресс.
Койфман, А. Я. (2017). Установка и неосознаваемый семантический прайминг: разные термины или разные феномены? Российский журнал когнитивной науки, 4(1), 26–32.
Куделькина, Н. С. (2008). Восприятие многозначной информации как предмет психологического исследования. Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Серия 12. Социология, 4, 268–277.
Линдсей, П., & Норман, Д. (1974). Переработка информации у человека (пер. с англ.). Наука.
Мамина, Т. М. (2012). Влияние актуализации значений многозначного слова на восприятие и запоминание. Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет.
Солсо, Р. (2006). Когнитивная психология (пер. с англ.) (6-е изд.). Питер.
Узнадзе, Д. Н. (2004). Общая психология. Смысл.
Фаликман, М. В., Койфман, А. Я. (2005). Виды прайминг-эффектов в исследованиях восприятия и перцептивного внимания. Вестник МГУ. Серия 14. Психология, 3, 86–97.
Филиппова, М. Г., Аллахвердов, В. М. (2020). Конкретизация выбранного смысла в процессе восприятия двойственных изображений. Психология. Журнал Высшей школы экономики, 17(2), 356–366. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2020-2-356-366
Филиппова, М. Г., Морошкина, Н. В. (2015). Осознаваемая и неосознаваемая многозначность: два вида когнитивного контроля. Сибирский психологический журнал, 56, 37–55. https://doi.org/10.17223/17267080/56/4
Agafonov, A. (2010). Priming Effect as a Result of the Nonconscious Activity of Consciousness. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 48(3), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405480302
Baars, B. (1989). A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge University Press.
Balota, D., & Paul, S. (1996). Summation of Activation: Evidence From Multiple Primes That Converge and Diverge Within Semantic Memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(4), 827–845. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.22.4.827
Bower, G. H., Monteiro, K. P., & Gilligan, S.G. (1978). Emotional mood as a context for learning and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 17(5), 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90348-1
Chun, M. M. (2000). Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(5), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s1364-6613(00)01476-5
Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36(1), 28–71. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0681
Godden, D. R., & Baddeley, A. D. (1975). Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology, 66(3), 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01468.x
Grant, H. M., Bredahl, L. C., Clay, J., Ferrie, J., Groves, J. E., McDorman, T. A., & Dark, V. J. (1998). Context-Dependent Memory for Meaningful Material: Information for Students. Applied cognitive psychology, 12(6), 617–623. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(1998120)12:6<617::AID-ACP542>3.0.CO;2-5
Gulan, T., & Valerjev, P. (2010). Semantic and related types of priming as a context in word recognition. Review of Psychology, 17(1), 53–58.
Haro, J., Demestre, J., Boada, R., & Ferré, P. (2017). ERP and behavioral effects of semantic ambiguity in a lexical decision task. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 44, 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2017.06.001
Isarida, T. P., & Isarida, T. K. (2014). Environmental context-dependent memory. In A. J. Thirnton (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology research (pp. 115–151). NOVA Science Publishers.
Isarida, T. P., & Isarida, T. K. (2006). Influences of environmental context on the recency effect in free recall. Memory & Cognition, 34, 787–794. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193426
Jiang, Y., & Chun, M. M. (2001). Selective attention modulates implicit learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 54A(4), 1105–1124. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980042000516
Marcel, A. J. (1981). Conscious and preconscious recognition of polysemous words: Locating the selective effects of prior verbal context. In R.S. Nickerson (Ed.). Attention and performance VII, 435–457.
Marcel, A. J. (1983). Conscious and unconscious perception: Experiments on visual masking and word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 15(2), 197–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(83)90009-9
Parker, A., & Gellatly, A. (1997). Moveable cues: A practical method for reducing context-dependent forgetting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199704)11:2<163::AID-ACP427>3.0.CO;2-1
Rayner, K., & Frazier, L. (1989). Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(5), 779–790. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.15.5.779
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Russian Psychological Journal