I. A. Vasiliev *, O. V. Mitina **, V. V. Kobanov ***
*ScD (psychology), professor, general psychology chair, psychology department, MSU, Moscow
**PhD, senior research assistant, psychosemantics laboratory, psychology department, MSU, Moscow
***Post-graduate student of the general psychology chair, psychology department, MSU, Moscow
Investigation results of different types of personality motivation and self-government influence on productivity of mental activity are stated. Intrinsic motivation during complex problems solving creates conditions for self-government according self-regulation mode. Under extrinsic motivation self-government is accomplished in the form of self-control. The lack of self-government is connected with amotivation. Structural equations method used for experimental data processing allowed to confirm statistically the results significance. Different orientation and degree of types of personality motivation and self-government influence on mental activity productivity during complex problems solving are shown. For mental activity production under different conditions the computer model of "Fabrika" system was used (original version by D. Derner, J. Gerdes, russification was carried out at psychology department of MSU).
Key words: motivation, self-government, self-regulation, self-control, complex problems solving, structural modeling, computer simulation.
. 49
. (. [20]).
. 51
, "" , - . "" . . , , , , . , . , "" 300 .
. , . , , , ( ), ; , - , . , . , 300 , "" . . , "" , . "" , 300 .
[31, 34 .], , , - "" , , , , .
3.
1980- . , , , (, [24]). , , .
. [7] , , , , . 300 , . . , . , , , .
, , . . , , , [32]. , . , , , , . , .
, , , . , . . [10] , . , , .
. 52
. . , , , - [8]. . . , , - , . ( , - ), .
"" , , , , [15].
4.
, , , 2. 1990- . (. [6]).
, , . . , . . , , . , , . . . . . (, 500 , ), (, 50 , , ) [6].
, . , , " " (. [37]). ( ) , [26]. , , , , , , , . . . (1998, . [6]), , [12], [1].
, , . , . . [2] : [19], - ( ) ( ). , . . , . , - . , (. . ) . , , , .
2 " " .
. 53
, .
, , , . . . [17], . , , , , . , , , . . , , .
5.
, " ". ( ), . , , . , . , , .
. [34, 35] , . . , , . , .
. [35] : , . , , ( ), . , 180. , , , . : , .
, (. [34]). , . , , , ( ), , [18].
, . , . [35], , , , . . (. [33]).
, . , . . [27] (, ) . , , . ,
. 54
, ( , ), , .
"" . "" , .
- [33], , "" [27].
6. :
, , . 1990- . . [29, 30] " ", . , , , , - . , .
, , . . , , , , . , , . , , "" . , , , ( , 180) .
, , , , , . , , - , [30].
7.
. .
, , , - , ( [27]). , .
, , , [9]. , , , , .
, , , . , . [4] ( 1000 ), 50% . , . 20%, 80%. , , , .
. 55
. [28]. 600 , , ( , ), . . "" , , . , .
, . [13] , , , , , : 1) , . . ( ), 2) , ( ). , . , , , .
8.
. , (), , - (), , .
, (ER-fMRI), . , [11, 15]: , . (), , , [25].
, , , : 3 [14, 15]. , , , , . . , , . , , , .
, , , , , . , . . , , , , , , [23]. , , , , [22].
3 - , [34].
. 56
, , , . . ( , , ), . .
, , . , " , " [31]. - , , , .
, . -, , . -, . , , . -, .
1. . . ., 1912. . 174 - 191.
2. Castel A. D., Pratt J., Craik F. I. M. The role of spatial working memory in inhibition of return: Evidence from divided attention tasks // Perception and Psychophysics. 2003. V. 65. N 6. P. 970 - 981.
3. Danziger S., Kingstone A. Unmasking the inhibition of return phenomenon // Perception and Psychophysics. 1999. V. 61. N 6. P. 1024 - 1037.
4. Decaix C., Sieroff E., Bartolomeo P. How voluntary is 'voluntary' orienting of attention? // Cortex. 2002. V. 38. P. 841 - 845.
5. Di Lollo V. Temporal integration in visual memory // Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 1980. V. 109. N. 1. P. 75 - 97.
6. Dodd M. D., Castel A., Pratt A. Inhibition of return with rapid serial shifts of attention: Implications for memory and visual search // Perception and Psychophysics. 2003. V. 65. N 7. P. 1126 - 1135.
7. Galfano G., Betta E., Turatto M. Inhibition of return in microsaccades // Experimental Brain Research. 2004. V. 159. N 3. P. 400 - 404.
8. Hunt A. R., Kingstone A. Inhibition of return: Dissociating attentional and oculomotor components // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2003. V. 29. N 5. P. 1068 - 1074.
9. Jonides J. Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement // Long J. B., Baddeley A. D. (Eds.) Attention and Performance IX. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum, 1981. P. 187 - 203.
10. Kingstone A., Pratt J. Inhibition of return is composed of attentional and oculomotor processes // Perception and Psychophysics. 1999. V. 61. N 6. P. 1046 - 1054.
11. Lepsien J, Pollmann S. Covert reorienting and inhibition of return: an event-related fMRI study // J. of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2002. V. 14. N 2. P. 127 - 144.
12. Luck S. J., Vogel E. K. The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions // Nature. 1997. V. 390. P. 279 - 281.
13. Lupianez J., Milliken B., Solano C, Weaver B. On the strategic modulation of the time course of facilitation and inhibition of return // Quarterly J. of Experimental Psychology. 2001. V. 54A. N 3. P. 753 - 773.
14. Mayer A. R., Dorflinger J. M., Rao S. M., Seidenberg M. Neural networks underlying endogenous and exogenous visual-spatial orienting // Neuroimage. 2004. V. 23. N 2. P. 534 - 541.
15. Mayer A. R., Seidenberg M., Dorflinger J. M., Rao S. M. An event-related fMRI study of exogenous orienting: supporting evidence for the cortical basis of inhibition of return? // J. of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2004. V. 16. N7. P. 1262 - 1271.
16. Maylor E. A., Hockey G. R. J. Inhibitory component of externally controlled covert orienting in visual space // J. of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1985. V. 11. N 6. P. 777 - 787.
17. Mueller H. J., von Muehlenen A. Probing distractor inhibition in visual search: Inhibition of return // J. of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2000. V. 26. N 5. P. 1591 - 1605.
18. Paul M. A., Tipper S. P. Object-based representations facilitate memory for inhibitory processes // Experimental Brain Research. 2003. V. 148. N 3. P. 283 - 289.
19. Posner M. I., Cohen Y. Components of visual orienting // Attention and Performance X / Eds. H. Bouma, D. G. Bouwhuis. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum, 1984. P. 531 - 556.
20. Posner M. I., Fan J. Attention as an organ system // Neurobiology of perception and communication: From synapse to society. The 4th De Lange Conference / Ed. J. Pomerantz. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
21. Posner M. I., Nissen M. J., Ogden W. C. Attended and unattended processing modes: The role of set for spatial location. Modes of perceiving and processing informa-
. 57
tion // Eds. H. L. Pick, I. J. Saltzman. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum, 1978. P. 160 - 174.
22. Prime D. J., Tata M. S., Ward L. M. Event-related potential evidence for attentional inhibition of return in audition // Neuroreport. 2003. V. 14. N 3. P. 393 - 397.
23. Prime D. J., Ward L. M. Inhibition of return from stimulus to response // Psychological Science. 2004. V. 15. N 4. P. 272 - 276.
24. Rizzolatti G., Riggio L., Dascola I., Umilta C. Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention // Neuropsychologia. 1987. V. 25. N 1A. P. 31 - 40.
25. Ro T., Fame A., Chang E. Inhibition of return and the human frontal eye fields // Experimental Brain Research. 2003. V. 150. P. 290 - 296.
26. Samuel A. G., Kat D. Inhibition of return: A graphical meta-analysis of its time course and an empirical test of its temporal and spatial properties // Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 2003. V. 10. N 4. P. 897 - 906.
27. Schendel K. L., Robertson L. C., Treisman A. Objects and their locations in exogenous cuing // Perception and Psychophysics. 2001. V. 63. N 4. P. 577 - 594.
28. Schmitt M., Postma A., De Haan E. Cross-modal exogenous attention and distance effects in vision and hearing // European J. of Cognitive Psychology. 2001. V. 13. N 3. P. 343 - 368.
29. Spalek T. M., Hammad S. Supporting the attentional momentum view of IOR: is attention biased to go right? // Perception and Psychophysics. 2004. V. 66. N 2. P. 219 - 233.
30. Spalek T. M., Hammad S. The left-to-right bias in inhibition of return is due to the direction of reading // Psychological Science. 2005. V. 16. N 1. P. 15 - 18.
31. Taylor L. M., Klein R. M. On the causes and effects of inhibition of return // Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 1998. V. 5. P. 625 - 643.
32. Theeuwes J, Godijn R. Inhibition-of-return and oculomotor interference // Vision Research. 2004. V. 44. N 12. P. 1485 - 1492.
33. Tipper S. P., Jordan H., Weaver B. Scene-based and object-centered inhibition of return: Evidence for dual orienting mechanisms // Perception and Psychophysics. 1999. V. 61. N1. P. 50 - 60.
34. Tipper S. P., Weaver B. The medium of attention: location-based, object-centered, or scene-based? // Visual attention / Ed. R. Wright. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1998. P. 77 - 107.
35. Tipper S. P., Weaver B.,Jerreat L. M., Burak A. L. Object-based and environment-based inhibition of return of visual attention // J. of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1994. V. 20. N 3. P. 478 - 499.
36. Vivas A. B., Humphreys G. W., Fuentes L. J. Inhibitory processing following damage to the parietal lobe // Neuropsychologia. 2003. V. 41. N 11. P. 1531 - 1540.
37. Wixted J. T. A theory about why we forget what we once knew // Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2005. V. 14. N 1. P. 6 - 9.
ATTENTION'S INHIBITION OF RETURN PART 2. MECHANISMS: FORM RETINAL MASKING TO STRATEGICAL REGULATION
I. S. Utochkin*, M. V. Falikman**
* Post-graduate student, department of psychology, Moscow State University after M. V. Lomonosov, Moscow
**PhD, junior member of general psychology chair, department of psychology, Moscow State University after M. V. Lomonosov, Moscow
The article is devoted to the analysis of a spectrum of visuospatial attention models and theories providing an explanation to the inhibition of return (IOR) phenomenon referring a slower attentional shift to a target presented at a previously attended location as compared to targets presented at novel locations. The evolution of IOR explanations is reviewed: (1) an early explanation of IOR as an effect of retinal masking; (2) a model of attentional orienting proposed by M. Posner; (3) premotor theories of attention presenting IOR as a result of oculomotor inhibition; (4) an attentional momentum model of IOR; (5) working memory models of IOR; (6) understanding of IOR as an effect of a specific strategy of perceptual attention. Possible neurophysiological mechanisms of IOR are discussed as an additional criterion allowing to evaluated listed explanations.
Key words: percuptual attention, inhibition of return, working memory, oculomotor inhibition, priming, strategy, neurophysiological mechanisms of attention.
. 58
