冲突水平的变化诱发冲突适应

冲突适应是重要的认知控制现象, 反映了认知控制的动态过程。然而, 目前为止对于冲突水平上的差异能否诱发冲突适应尚不清楚。本研究采用字母Flanker的变式, 通过改变目标-分心物的一致性操纵冲突水平, 探究冲突水平的变化对认知控制调整的影响。结果发现被试的反应时间随冲突水平的提高而增加; 而且先前试次的一致性影响当前试次的干扰效应, 无冲突和低冲突、无冲突和高冲突、低冲突和高冲突条件之间均出现了典型的冲突适应。本研究结果表明, 除了冲突的有无, 冲突水平的变化也能诱发冲突适应, 支持更大的冲突驱动更强的认知控制, 而且冲突诱发的认知控制的功能可能通过注意聚焦实现。这一发现为冲突监测理论的注意调节机制提供了直接的支持证据, 对于促进冲突适应的相关研究具有重要意义。     

基于Flanker、Stroop和Simon多重冲突驱动的认知控制机制

认知控制是维持和调整多任务目标导向的加工策略,而基于多任务冲突的认知控制是一般领域上还是特定领域上,即一种冲突是否会影响另一种冲突的解决,已有研究并没有得到统一的结论。本研究运用事件相关电位（ERP）方法考察了同一任务中不同类型冲突（Stroop、Simon和Flanker冲突）驱动认知控制调节的脑机制。数据显示：各冲突都出现了一致性效应和冲突适应性效应;实验中每种冲突的上一个trial只与该类冲突的当前trial的交互效应显著,而与其他类型冲突的当前trial的交互效应不显著;几乎所有冲突都发现了P300、N450、SP成分一致性效应。结果表明：在不同类型冲突驱动条件下,人脑能够同时监控并解决不同类型的冲突;冲突驱动的认知控制系统以局部的控制方式工作;人脑是基于多冲突驱动的认知控制系统的灵活性和某类型冲突所特有的控制机制来解决冲突,且冲突解决机制是相互独立、互不干扰的。     

色-词Stroop任务中的冲突类型述评

在认知控制领域中, 色-词Stroop任务常被用于研究冲突加工的内在机制。本文首先简述色-词Stroop任务中的刺激冲突和反应冲突及研究这两类冲突常用的实验范式。然后介绍这两类冲突的神经动力学特征：事件相关电位研究显示, N450的波幅调整反映了大脑对冲突的监测, 持续电位(sustained potential, SP)的波幅调整反映了大脑对反应冲突的解决; 核磁共振成像研究显示, 前扣带回、背外侧前额叶分别在反应冲突的监测、认知控制的执行上扮演着重要的角色。文章最后针对目前研究范式存在的问题提出了改进方法和认知神经研究的新方向。     

视觉表象扫描加工中的认知控制

通过建构一个反向扫描任务而形成任务冲突,在3个实验中考察了视觉表象扫描中认知控制与冲突解决机制。结果发现:(1)视觉表象扫描中出现了任务冲突效应;(2)外源性认知控制增强降低了任务冲突效应,但不影响扫描效率;(3)内源性认知控制增强既降低了任务冲突效应,也提高了反向扫描任务扫描效率。这些结果证实视觉表象扫描中存在一个认知控制机制,并发展了现有冲突解决理论。     

冲突解决过程中认知控制的注意调节机制

认知控制在冲突解决过程中起到重要的调节作用。相关理论大多结合任务相关刺激的加工增强和任务无关刺激的加工抑制进行解释,但近年来受到实证研究的挑战。综述了冲突解决中增强和抑制两种调节机制的争论和相应的实证证据,同时指出认知控制的调节机制可能受到冲突情境和个体自身等因素的影响。未来的研究应更多关注认知控制调节机制的影响因素,加强认知加工策略和认知训练的探究,为认知功能受损群体的干预提供依据。     

主动性和反应性认知控制的权衡机制及影响因素

主动性控制和反应性控制是认知控制研究的新视角。前者通过在反应前维持目标相关信息的表征来预防冲突, 后者在反应时重激活目标相关信息以解决冲突。个体能够在这两种认知控制间进行权衡从而形成最优反应。通过AX-CPT等实验范式, 辅以ERP、fMRI技术可分离两种认知控制, 并观察到认知控制相关的脑区在激活时间和强度上的差异。个体生理发展、认知因素(期望、流体智力、训练)、非认知因素(情绪、动机等)均能影响认知控制的权衡。未来的研究应多关注这一权衡的内在神经机制和认知机制, 并与传统认知控制研究相结合, 在理论和应用上取得更进一步的发展。     

冲突控制是领域一般性的还是领域特殊性的?

本研究采用整合交叉范式整合了Stroop任务和Simon任务,在双重认知控制的框架下探讨冲突控制是领域一般性的还是领域特殊性的问题。结果发现:序列一致性效应只出现在任务内,不出现于任务间,显示对冲突的反应性控制具有领域特殊性;比例一致性效应不仅出现在同种任务中,而且扩展到不同任务中,显示对冲突的主动性控制具有领域一般性。本研究结果对于理解认知控制的本质和机制具有重要意义。     

无意识冲突的发生机制：基于Stroop范式的探讨

无意识信息对人们的行为有着十分重要的影响,它不仅能触发相对低级的认知功能而且也能触发冲突控制等相对高级的认知功能。尽管已有研究从行为和认知神经研究两个方面强有力地证实了无意识冲突的存在,但对无意识冲突是源自中枢加工产生的语义冲突还是晚期动作选择中产生的反应冲突存在激烈的争议。本研究采用分离语义冲突和反应冲突的实验逻辑在Stroop掩蔽启动任务中探讨了无意识冲突的机制。结果发现,无意识Stroop效应中既包含语义冲突又包含反应冲突。这说明无意识冲突可能由语义冲突和反应冲突共同构成。实验结果也进一步支持了无意识刺激可以加工到语义水平的观点。     

认知和情绪冲突的监控与解决：来自轻度认知损伤的证据

轻度认知损伤(mild cognitive impairment, MCI)是介于正常老化和痴呆之间的过渡阶段。近年来, 执行控制的损伤被认为是MCI的核心特征之一。当前, 在MCI执行控制的领域内, 对冲突监控与解决的特征及其神经机制的研究较少。本研究拟通过认知及情绪冲突实验范式, 结合脑成像技术, 探讨遗忘型MCI (amnestic MCI, aMCI)认知和情绪冲突的监控与解决的特征及相应的脑激活模式; 通过对比aMCI和正常老年人在认知和情绪冲突任务中激活的神经环路, 考察aMCI是否在执行加工的神经网络上存在激活异常。在上述研究基础上, 研究者拟探讨aMCI在执行控制的冲突监控与解决上是否存在一般性的损伤机制, 同时试图寻找aMCI在执行控制的冲突监控与解决方面的认知及神经生物学标记。这对深入理解痴呆的发病进程并有针对性的开展痴呆的早期识别与干预具有重要的理论意义和实践意义。     

冲突适应独立于意识：来自行为和ERP的证据

尽管已有研究发现诸如抑制控制和任务转换等认知控制功能独立于意识, 但是对冲突适应是否需要意识的参与目前还存在激烈的争论。为了进一步探讨此问题, 本研究记录了18名被试在完成箭头偏对比掩蔽任务(meta-contrast masking task)时的行为和脑电数据。结果显示, 在有意识和无意识条件下在反应时和额中N2和中顶P3波幅上均表现出了显著的冲突适应效应。这不仅表明冲突控制独立于意识, 而且也表明先前无意识经验对人类信息加工系统的适应性调节作用。本研究对认识认知控制和意识的本质具有重要意义, 也为建构认知控制与意识关系的理论提供了启示。     

More conflict does not trigger more adjustment of cognitive control for subsequent events: A study of the bivalency effect

Encountering a conflict triggers an adjustment of cognitive control. This adjustment of cognitive control can even affect subsequent performance. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether more conflict triggers more adjustment of cognitive control for subsequent performance. To this end, we focussed on the bivalency effect, that is, the adjustment of cognitive control following the conflict induced by bivalent stimuli (i.e., stimuli with relevant features for two tasks). In two experiments, we tested whether the amount of conflict triggered by bivalent stimuli affected the bivalency effect. Bivalent stimuli were either compatible (i.e., affording one response) or incompatible (i.e., affording two different responses). Thus, compatible bivalent stimuli involved a task conflict, whereas incompatible bivalent stimuli involved a task and a response conflict. The results showed that the bivalency effect was not affected by this manipulation. This indicates that more conflict does not trigger more adjustment of cognitive control for subsequent performance. Therefore, only the occurrence of conflict – not its amount – is determinant for cognitive control.     

Conflict monitoring and cognitive control

A neglected question regarding cognitive control is how control processes might detect situations calling for their involvement. The authors propose here that the demand for control may be evaluated in part by monitoring for conflicts in information processing. This hypothesis is supported by data concerning the anterior cingulate cortex, a brain area involved in cognitive control, which also appears to respond to the occurrence of conflict. The present article reports two computational modeling studies, serving to articulate the conflict monitoring hypothesis and examine its implications. The first study tests the sufficiency of the hypothesis to account for brain activation data, applying a measure of conflict to existing models of tasks shown to engage the anterior cingulate. The second study implements a feedback loop connecting conflict monitoring to cognitive control, using this to simulate a number of important behavioral phenomena.     

In the mood for adaptation: how affect regulates conflict-driven control

Cognitive conflict plays an important role in tuning cognitive control to the situation at hand. On the basis of earlier findings demonstrating emotional modulations of conflict processing, we predicted that affective states may adaptively regulate goal-directed behavior that is driven by conflict. We tested this hypothesis by measuring conflict-driven control adaptations following experimental induction of four different mood states that could be differentiated along the dimensions of arousal and pleasure. After mood states were induced, 91 subjects performed a flanker task, which provided a measure of conflict adaptation. As predicted, pleasure level affected conflict adaptation: Less pleasure was associated with more conflict-driven control. Arousal level did not influence conflict adaptation. This study suggests that affect adaptively regulates cognitive control. Implications for future research and psychopathology are discussed.     

Motivational and cognitive determinants of control during conflict processing

Previous studies suggest that both reward anticipation and expected or experienced conflicts activate cognitive control. The present study investigated how these factors interact during conflict processing. In two experiments, participants performed a variant of the Stroop task, receiving performance-dependent monetary rewards in some blocks. In addition, we manipulated the level of conflict-triggered reactive and expectancy-driven proactive control: In Experiment 1, we compared the Stroop effect after previously congruent and incongruent trials to examine the conflict adaptation effect (reactive control). We found that the level of motivation did not interact with conflict adaptation. In Experiment 2, we varied the proportion of congruent and incongruent trials to manipulate conflict expectancy (proactive control). The data suggest the effects of motivation to be less pronounced under conditions of high conflict expectancy. We conclude that the interaction of motivation with cognitive determinants of control depends on whether these activate proactive or reactive control processes.     

Exploring emotional and cognitive conflict using speeded voluntary facial expressions

Affective conflict and control may have important parallels to cognitive conflict and control, but these processes have been difficult to quantitatively study with emotionally naturalistic laboratory paradigms. The current study examines a modification of the AX-Continuous Performance Task (AX-CPT), a well-validated probe of cognitive conflict and control, for the study of emotional conflict. In the Emotional AX-CPT, speeded emotional facial expressions measured with electromyography (EMG) were used as the primary response modality, and index of emotional conflict. Bottom-up emotional conflict occurred on trials in which precued facial expressions were incongruent with the valence of an emotionally evocative picture probe (e.g., smiling to a negative picture). A second form of top-down conflict occurred in which the facial expression and picture probe were congruent, but the opposite expression was expected based on the precue. A matched version of the task was also performed (in a separate group of participants) with affectively neutral probe stimuli. Behavioral interference was observed, in terms of response latencies and errors, on all conflict trials. However, bottom-up conflict was stronger in the emotional version of the task compared to the neutral version; top-down conflict was similar across the two versions. The results suggest that voluntary facial expressions may be more sensitive to indexing emotional than nonemotional conflict, and importantly, may provide an ecologically valid method of examining how emotional conflict may manifest in behavior and brain activity.     

Positive emotion impedes emotional but not cognitive conflict processing

Cognitive control enables successful goal-directed behavior by resolving a conflict between opposing action tendencies, while emotional control arises as a consequence of emotional conflict processing such as in irony. While negative emotion facilitates both cognitive and emotional conflict processing, it is unclear how emotional conflict processing is affected by positive emotion (e.g., humor). In 2 EEG experiments, we investigated the role of positive audiovisual target stimuli in cognitive and emotional conflict processing. Participants categorized either spoken vowels (cognitive task) or their emotional valence (emotional task) and ignored the visual stimulus dimension. Behaviorally, a positive target showed no influence on cognitive conflict processing, but impeded emotional conflict processing. In the emotional task, response time conflict costs were higher for positive than for neutral targets. In the EEG, we observed an interaction of emotion by congruence in the P200 and N200 ERP components in emotional but not in cognitive conflict processing. In the emotional conflict task, the P200 and N200 conflict effect was larger for emotional than neutral targets. Thus, our results show that emotion affects conflict processing differently as a function of conflict type and emotional valence. This suggests that there are conflict- and valence-specific mechanisms modulating executive control.     

Multiple cognitive control effects of error likelihood and conflict

Recent work on cognitive control has suggested a variety of performance monitoring functions of the anterior cingulate cortex such as errors, conflict, error likelihood, and others. Given the variety of monitoring effects, a corresponding variety of control effects on behavior might be expected. This paper explores whether conflict and error likelihood produce distinct cognitive control effects on behavior, as measured by response time. A Change signal task (Brown & Braver, Science 307:1118–1121, 2005) was modified to include conditions of likely errors due to tardy as well as premature responses in conditions with and without conflict. The results discriminate between competing hypotheses of independent versus interacting conflict and error likelihood control effects. Specifically, the results suggest that the likelihood of premature versus tardy response errors can lead to multiple distinct control effects, which are independent of cognitive control effects driven by response conflict. As a whole, the results point to the existence of multiple distinct cognitive control mechanisms and challenge existing models of cognitive control that incorporate only a single control signal.