【作者】 曾幼文； 陈娟； 陈彩琦；

【Author】 Zeng youwen;Chen juan;Chen caiqi;School of Psychology, South China Normal University;

【机构】 华南师范大学心理学院；

【摘要】 以往对认知控制机制的研究通常使用冲突范式,如Flanker,Stroop任务,但现实生活中存在很多不涉及冲突的认知控制情境,例如知觉决策。因此,以往的认知控制任务窄化了认知控制的研究范围。多功能任务(Majority Function Task, MFT),通过操纵信息的不确定性而非冲突条件来研究认知控制,有助于扩大和深化对认知控制内在机制的认识。本研究通过行为和ERP实验,比较MFT和Flanker所反映的内部心理过程和电生理机制的差异,进而揭示认知控制的共性和差异性。在实验中,我们将Flanker任务和MFT任务进行物理属性刺激材料的完全匹配,唯一区别在于要求被试对刺激做出的反应方式不同。刺激材料由3个或5个水平排列的箭头组成,箭头指向左或右的比例有4种情况:3:0、2:1、5:0和4:1。在Flaker任务中,要求被试对忽略两侧箭头,仅对中间箭头的朝向进行判断;在MFT中要求被试对多数箭头的朝向进行判断。实验1对箭头的各种方向组合都进行了比较。我们发现,在相同的刺激条件下,MFT的反应时比Flanker任务更长。通过搜索策略分析,我们认为Flanker任务更多受到自下而上的自动分组搜索策略影响,而MFT任务涉及更复杂的自上而下的加工,需要消耗更多的资源用以减少不确定性和保持信息的优先性。实验2对Flanker任务和MFT的脑电数据进行了比较。我们发现,两个任务都激活了相同的脑区,但在激活程度和激活时间上存在差异。在ERP晚期成分上,MFT不同条件的分离程度大于Flanker任务。Flanker任务先激活枕叶视觉区而后激活额叶FEF附近区域,反映了自下而上的加工模式;MFT任务先激活额叶FEF附近区域而后激活顶枕区域,反映了的自上而下的认知控制加工。更多还原

【Abstract】 Previous studies on cognitive control mechanisms often use conflict paradigms, such as Flanker,Stroop task. but there are many cognitive control situations in real life that do not involve conflict, such as perceptual decision making. Therefore, the previous cognitive control task narrows the scope of cognitive control research. Majority Function Task can help to expand and deepen the understanding of the internal mechanism of cognitive control by studying the cognitive control under the circumstance of manipulating the uncertainty of the information rather than the conflict condition. This study attempts to compare the differences between the internal psychological processes and the electrophysiological mechanisms reflected by MFT and Flanker through behavior and ERP tecnique so as to further reveal the commonness and difference of cognitive control. In the study, we make the Flanker task and the MFT task completely match each other in physical attribute stimulus material, and the only difference is that the subjects are required to respond differently to the stimulus. The stimulus material consists of three or five horizontal arrows, and the ratio of the arrows directed left and right has four possibilities: 3: 0, 2: 1, 5: 0 and 4: 1. In the Flanker task, the subjects are asked to ignore the arrows on the two sides and judge only the direction of the arrow in the middle; in the MFT task, subjects are required to judge the direction of the majority of most arrows. Study 1 compares the various direction combinations of the arrows. We find that on the same stimulus condition, the response time of MFT task is longer than that of Flanker task. Through the search strategy analysis, we think that the Flanker task is more affected by the bottom-up processing, while the MFT task involves more complex top-down processing and needs to consume more resources to reduce uncertainty and maintain the priority of information. Srudy 2 compares the ERP data of Flanker task and the MFT. We find that both tasks activate the same brain area, but their activation degree and activation time are different. In the late component of ERP, the separation degrees of MFT on different conditions are higher than that of the Flanker task. Flanker task, which first activates the lateral intraparietal area and then activate the frontal eye fields, reflects a bottom-up processing; MFT task, which first activates the frontal eye fields and then activate the lateral intraparietal area, reflecting the top-down processing.更多还原