中文摘要：

已有研究表明个人重要信息调控高级认知加工过程，如面孔识别、记忆、思维等。本研究的三项实验系统地测量了个人重要信息对知觉选择的影响。采用最近发展的自我连接学习范式，让中性几何图形与不同人（自我、朋友、陌生人）建立联系；图形-标签连接完成后，以复合图形（局部小图形组成整体大图形）作为实验刺激，被试完成整体/局部图形判断任务，通过评估个体对具有不同社会意义图形（目标 vs.分心物水平）的感知差异，测量个人重要信息对知觉选择的调控作用。结果发现，与他人相关图形相比，自我相关图形作为分心物调控整体优先效应，这种效应一致地发生在整体和局部水平上，并且不受注意任务的影响。这些结果提示社会信息对认知的调控作用发生在视觉选择水平上。

英文摘要：

It has been well documented that that personal significance modulates the high-level cognitive processes, including face recognition, memory and thinking. How personal significance （i.e., the self） modulates the visual selection remains poorly understood, however. Here by combining recent developed self-associative learning approach and a global-local task, this article present the evidence that self-salience impacted on visual selection-eliminating the effect of global advantage. The pattern consistently occurred in both divided and focused attention tasks. In contrast, this was not the case for friend-associations. 〈br〉 The present study report 3 experiments to test how the self-salience modulated the selection of attention. It first developed a baseline experiment showing a global advantage effect in Experiment 1; 24 participants participated in Experiment 1 and carried out two tasks - a self-associative learning task following by a global-local task. In the self-associative learning task, three geometric shapes were randomly assigned to three persons （self, friend, and a stranger）. Having formed a personal association, participants performed the＆amp;nbsp;global-local task where they were presented compound shapes （e.g. a global circle formed by local squares, self- square, stranger - circle, local self forming global stranger） and had to identify the shape-associated person （self vs. friend）. Targets randomly appeared at either the global or local level. Reaction time and accuracy performance were measured and analyzed using repeated-measures analyses of variance （ANOVAs） with Social Relevance （self vs. friend） and Attention Level （global vs. local）. Experiment 2 was identical to Experiment 1 except that the stranger-related shapes were targets while the self- and friend-related shapes had to be ignored. There were 20 participants in Experiment 2. Different from Experiments 1 and 2 where the divided attention task was employed, Experiment 3 used a focus attention task where p