『新东方在线托福听力』为托福考生准备了ETS托福TPO/Official 15 Lec 1听力练习：What hypotheses about distraction and the brain were Lavie’s experiments involving star fields designed to investigate?原文题目答案解析，TPO/Official 15 Lec 1听力原文范文音频翻译。

托福TPO/Official 15 Lec 1听力原文What hypotheses about distraction and the brain were Lavie’s experiments involving star fields designed to investigate?-新东方托福官方网校手机版

旁白：听一段心理学的课程演讲。

Narrator: Listen to part of a lecture in a psychology class.

教授：几十年来，心理学家们一直在观察我们在其他事情正在进行的时候，我们完成任务的能力。

Female Professor: For decades, psychologists have been looking at our ability to perform tasks while other things are going on.

我们怎样能不被分散精力，什么样的环境有助于我们集中精神。

How we're able to keep from being distracted and what the conditions for good concentration are.

早在1982年，研究人员就想到了一个叫CFQ‐认知失败的问卷调查。

As long ago as 1982, researchers came up with something called the CFQ, the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire.

这个调查问卷让人们在不同情形下受到不同程度的干扰来对自己进行评估，比如因为脑子中想别的事情就忘记了给电脑文件存档或者在路上错过了限速图标。乔恩？

This questionnaire asks people to rate themselves according to how often they get distracted in different situations, like, um, forgetting to save a computer file because they had something else on their mind, or, missing a speed limit sign on the road, John?

乔恩：我也忘记过给电脑存档，但是不是因为我被分散精力了。

Male Student: I've lost my share of computer files but not because I'm easily distracted.

教授：这也是CFQ的一部分问题所在。

Professor: And that's part of the problem with the CFQ.

它没有能将其它的因素足够的考虑进来，如遗忘。

It doesn't take other factors into account enough like forgetfulness.

另外你的确很难说能从人们对自己评估的主观问卷中得出客观的科学结论来。

Plus you really can't say you are getting objective scientific results from a subjective questionnaire where people report on themselves.

所以说有人试图设计一种客观的方法来测量注意力分散也是不足为奇的。

So it's no surprise that someone attempted to design an objective way to measure distraction.

这是一个简单的电脑游戏，由一位叫做尼里拉威的心理学家所设计。

It's a simple computer game designed by a psychologist named Nilli Lavie.

在她的游戏中，人们在电脑屏幕上特定的区域中观看出现或者消失的字母N和X。

In Lavie's game, people watch as the letters “N” and “X” appear and disappear in a certain area on the computer screen.

每次人们看见N，就按一个键，每次看见X，就按另一个键。

Every time they see an N, they press one key and every time they see an X, they press another.

其它字母也一样在屏幕上附近的区域出现，并以出现的频率逐渐增长来使这项任务更加有难度。

Except other letters also start appearing in the surrounding area of the screen with increasing frequency which creates a distraction and makes the task more difficult.

拉威观察到人们在分散注意力度增加后反应速度减慢了。

Lavie observed that people's reaction time slowed as these distractions increased.

学生2：这倒不足为奇，不是吗？

Female Student: Well, that's not too surprising, is it?

但是实验的下一个步骤却很让人惊奇。

It's the next part of the experiment that was surprising.

当难度真正在增加时，人们却能看到X和N了。

When the difficulty really increased, when the screen filled up with letters, people got better at spotting the Xs and Ns.

乔恩：嗯，可能是当我们特别经历集中的时候，我们就不去感知不相关的信息了。可能是我们就没有吸收这些信息，你知道吧？

Male Student: Well, maybe when we're really concentrating, we just don't perceive irrelevant information, maybe we just don't take it in, you know?

教授：是的，这是提出的第一种设想，就是说大脑仅仅就是不接收不重要的信息。

Professor: Yes, and that's one of the hypotheses that was proposed, that the brain simply doesn't admit unimportant information.

第二种设想是，对，我们认知一切，但是大脑将信息分类。

The second hypothesis is that, yes, we do perceive everything, but the brain categorizes the information.

然后一切与我们专注的不相关的信息就不被重视了。

And whatever's not relevant to what we're concentrating on gets treated as low priority.

因此拉威进行了另一项实验，就是为了看看在难度增加后，人们的专注能力。

So Lavie did another experiment designed to look at this ability to concentrate better in the face of increased difficulty.

这次她使用了大脑扫描一起来监控大脑某个特定区域的活动。

This time, she used brain scanning equipment to monitor activity in a certain part of the brain.

这个区域叫做V5，是视觉皮质的一部分，是人类大脑处理视觉刺激的部分。

The area called V5, which is part of the visual cortex, the part of our brains that processes visual stimuli.

V5是视觉皮质用来感知运动的区域。

V5 is the area of the visual cortex that's responsible for the sensation of movement.

拉威又一次进行了以电脑为基础的工作。

Once again, Lavie gave people a computer-based task to do.

人们需要辨别大小写字母，甚至更难，他们不得不数不同单词有多少个音节。

They had to distinguish between words in upper- and lower-cased letters; or even harder, they had to count the number of syllables in different words.

这次的注意力分散方法是在背景上添置了一个移动的星场。

This time, the distraction was a moving star field in the background.

你知道的，看上去就像你在穿越太空，穿梭于星际一般。

You know, where it looks like you're moving through space passing stars?

当移动的星星被大脑认知后，一般V5区域会被刺激到，果然，拉威发现在这个任务进行中，V5区域是活跃的，因此人们是能感知到移动的星场的。

Normally, area V5 would be stimulated as those moving stars are perceived, and sure enough, Lavie found that during the task, area V5 was active, so people were aware of the moving star field.

这就意味着人们没有把分散注意力的东西给屏蔽。

That means people were not blocking out the distraction.

学生：那这不就意味着刚才您提到的第一个设想是错误的吗？

Female Student: So doesn't that mean the first hypothesis you mentioned was wrong?

就是说我们在专注的时候不去认知不相关的信息？

The one that says we don't even perceive irrelevant information when we're concentrating?

教授：是的，说到点子上的。但不完全是。

Professor: Yes, that's right, up to a point, but that's not all.

拉威同样发现，在她将任务难度提高时，V5变得不那么活跃了。

Lavie also discovered that as she made the task more difficult, V5 became less active.

也就是说人们其实并不注意星场了。

So that means that now people weren't really noticing the star field at all.

同时也证明了第二种设想，就是我们的确认知一切事物，但是大脑将分散注意力的东西进行不同的分类，呃，这种设想也不对。

And it proved that the second hypothesis, that we do perceive everything all the time but the brain categorizes distractions differently, well, that wasn't true either.

拉威认为解决方案在于大脑接受和忽略视觉信息的能力。

Lavie thinks the solution lies in the brain's ability to accept or ignore visual information.

就像高公路一样。当车很多的时候，交通就堵塞了。

It's like a highway: when there are too many cars, traffic is stopped.

那么当大脑的承载力已经满时，就不能再感知新的分散注意力的事物了。

So when the brain is loaded to capacity, no new distractions can be perceived.

既然视觉注意力分散可能有了正确的结论，我们也还需要更多的研究来告诉我们大脑是如何处理一些问题的，比如说，当我们在解决数学题时感到饥饿或者听到隔壁在唱歌。

Now, that maybe the correct conclusion for visual distractions, but more research is needed to tell us how the brain deals with, say, the distractions of solving a math problem when we're hungry, or when someone is singing in the next room.

According to the professor, what are two weaknesses of the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire?

What hypotheses about distraction and the brain were Lavie’s experiments involving star fields designed to investigate?

What did Lavie's scans of subjects' visual cortexes reveal?

Why does the professor mention a highway?

What is the professor's opinion of Lavie's work?

Narrator: 
Listen to part of a lecture in a psychology class 
Professor 
For decades, psychologists have been looking at our ability to perform tasks while other things are going on, how we are able to keep from being distracted and what the conditions for good concentration are. As long ago as 1982, researchers came up with something called the CFQ - the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire. This questionnaire asks people to rate themselves according to how often they get distracted in different situations, like um … .. forgetting to save a computer file because they had something else on their mind or missing a speed limit sign on the road. John? 
As long ago as 1982, researchers came up with something called the CFQ - the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire. This questionnaire asks people to rate themselves according to how often they get distracted in different situations, like um … .. forgetting to save a computer file because they had something else on their mind or missing a speed limit sign on the road. John? 
John 
I've lost my share of computer files, but not because I’m easily distracted. I just forget to save them. 
Professor 
And that's part of the problem with the CFQ. It doesn’t take other factors into account enough, like forgetfulness. Plus you really can’t say you are getting objective scientific results from a subjective questionnaire where people report on themselves. 
So it’s no surprise that someone attempted to design an objective way to measure distraction.I t’s a simple computer game designed by a psychologist named, Nilli Lavie. In Lavie’s game, people watch as the letters N and X appear and disappear in a certain area on the computer screen. Every time they see an N, they press one key, and every time they see an X they press another, except other letters also start appearing in the surrounding area of the screen with increasing frequency which creates a distraction and makes the task more difficult. Lavie observed that people’s reaction time slowed as these distractions increased. 
Student 2 
Well that’s not too surprising, is it? 
Professor 
No, it's not. It's the next part of the experiment that was surprising. When the difficulty really increased, when the screen filled up with letters, people got better at spotting the Xs and Ns. Why do you think that happened? 
John 
Well, maybe when we are really concentrating, we just don't perceive irrelevant information . Maybe we just don't take it in, you know? 
Professor 
Yes, and that's one of the hypotheses that was proposed, that the brain simply doesn't admit the unimportant information. The second hypothesis is that, yes, we do perceive everything, but the brain categorizes the information, and whatever is not relevant to what we are concentrating on gets treated as low priority. So Lavie did another experiment, designed to look at this ability to concentrate better in the face of increased difficulty. 
This time she used brain scanning equipment to monitor activity in a certain part of the brain, the area called V5, which is part of the visual cortex, the part of our brains that processes visual stimuli. V5 is the area of the visual cortex that's responsible for the sensation of movement. Once again, Lavie gave people a computer-based task to do. 
They have to distinguish between words in upper and lower-case letters or even harder, they had to count the number of syllables in different words. This time the distraction was a moving star field in the background, you know, where it looks like you are moving through space, passing stars. Normally area of V5 would be stimulated as those moving stars are perceived and sure enough, Lavie found that during the task area of V5 was active, so people were aware of the moving star field. That means people were not blocking out the distraction. 
Student 
So doesn't that mean that the first hypothesis you mentioned was wrong, the one that says we don't even perceive irrelevant information when we are concentrating? 
Professor 
Yes that's right, up to a point, but that’s not all. Lavie also discovered that as she made the task more difficult, V5 became less active, so that means that now people weren’t really noticing the star field at all. That was quite a surprise and it proved that the second hypothesis – that we do perceive everything all the time but the brain categorizes distractions differently, well, that wasn't true either. 
Lavie thinks the solution lies in the brain’s ability to accept or ignore visual information. She thinks its capacity is limited. It’s like a highway. When there are too many cars, traffic is stopped. No one can get on. So when the brain is loaded to capacity, no new distractions can be perceived. Now that may be the correct conclusion for visual distractions, but more research is needed to tell us how the brain deals with, say, the distractions of solving a math problem when we are hungry or when someone is singing in the next room. 
Lavie thinks the solution lies in the brain’s ability to accept or ignore visual information. She thinks its capacity is limited. It’s like a highway. When there are too many cars, traffic is stopped. No one can get on. So when the brain is loaded to capacity, no new distractions can be perceived. 
Now that may be the correct conclusion for visual distractions, but more research is needed to tell us how the brain deals with, say, the distractions of solving a math problem when we are hungry or when someone is singing in the next room.