Comments on Fearful and sexual pictures not consciously seen modulate the startle reflex in human beings.
Comments on Fearful and sexual pictures not consciously seen modulate the startle reflex in human beings.
复制标题
对无意识看到的可怕和性图片的评论调节了人类的惊吓反射。
DOI：
10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.12.026
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
10.6
通讯作者：
Cornwell,Brian
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Grillon,Christian;Cornwell,Brian
在人类的惊吓反射中，鲁伊斯-帕迪亚尔和维拉声称，惊吓反应可以通过无意识处理的屏蔽负面图片（蜘蛛/蛇）来增强。我们认为这一说法没有得到数据的支持，而且该研究存在严重缺陷，主要有两个原因。首先，遮蔽刺激未被有意识感知的证据完全来自测试后调查问卷，其中参与者观看了 12 张图片（4 件家居用品、4 朵花、4 只蜘蛛），其中 2 张测试图片（一朵特定的花和一只特定的蜘蛛）之前向一组受试者展示了遮盖，而另一组则未遮盖。在实验 2 中，受试者选择了他们看过的图片，并表示了他们的信心。当图片之前没有被遮盖时，受试者能够可靠地识别出这些图片。在蒙面条件下，6 名受试者 (25%) 正确识别了一张或两张图片。另外75%的人没有认出这些图片，这被解释为在引起惊吓时缺乏对图片的认识。我们不否认这些受试者没有识别出特定的蒙面图片，但我们不认为识别测试与蒙面蜘蛛惊吓增强的解释有关。这是一个过于严格的测试，可能会大大低估有意识的受试者的数量（Lovibond 和 Shanks 2002）。受试者很有可能感知到一朵花和一只蜘蛛，从而引发适当的情感状态来调节惊吓，即使他们后来无法识别先前在 3 个类别内样本中呈现的特定样本。简而言之，识别任务远未证实掩蔽会阻止所有情感品质达到意识。
Startle Reflex in Human Beings, Ruiz-Padial and Vila claim that the startle response can be potentiated by masked negative pictures (spiders/snakes) that are nonconsciously processed. We believe that this claim is not supported by the data and that the study is seriously flawed for two primary reasons.First, evidence that masked stimuli were not consciously perceived came exclusively from a post-test questionnaire in which participants viewed 12 pictures (4 household objects, 4 flowers, 4 spiders), with 2 test pictures (a specific flower and a specific spider) that were previously presented masked to one group of subjects and unmasked to another group. Subjects chose which picture they had seen and, in Experiment 2, also indicated their confidence. Subjects reliably recognized the pictures when they were previously presented unmasked. In the masked condition, 6 subjects (25%) correctly identified one or both pictures. The other 75% did not recognize the pictures, which was interpreted as lack of awareness of the pictures when startle was elicited. We do not dispute the claim that the specific masked pictures were not recognized by those subjects, but we do not believe that the recognition test is relevant to the interpretation of the potentiation of startle by the masked spiders. This is too stringent a test and could significantly underestimate the number of aware subjects (Lovibond and Shanks 2002). It is quite possible that subjects perceived a flower and a spider, eliciting the appropriate affective state to modulate startle, even though they could not later identify the specific exemplars previously presented among 3 within-category exemplars. The recognition task, in short, far from establishes that masking prevented all affective qualities from reaching awareness.