不同反应重复量对反应抑制后效应的影响*

研究不同反应重复量对反应抑制后效应的影响。采用停止信号范式,让被试完成不同反应重复量的反应抑制任务。结果显示,总的来说反应重复量因素和重复类型因素的主效应都显著;信号抑制条件下重复一次后比重复三次后无信号试次反应时要显著地长,但都与总的无信号试次反应时没有显著差异;信号反应条件下重复三次后与重复一次后无信号试次反应时没有显著差异,但都比总的无信号试次反应时显著地长。结果表明,不同反应重复量反应抑制后效应在信号抑制条件下既有认知控制调整也有自动化记忆提取,在信号反应条件下仅存在认知控制的执行加工。     

不同刺激重复量对反应抑制后效应的影响

旨在探讨不同刺激重复量对反应抑制后效应的影响。在不同刺激重复量条件下,让被试完成停止信号任务。结果发现,从总体来看,刺激重复量因素上的主效应显著,重复类型因素上主效应不显著;信号抑制条件下不同刺激重复量后无信号试次反应时与总的无信号试次反应时差异不显著;信号反应条件下不同刺激重复量后无信号试次反应时与总的无信号试次反应时差异显著。本研究表明不同刺激重复量条件下的反应抑制后效应是认知控制的执行加工而非自动化的记忆提取。     

经颅直流电刺激对健康大学生反应抑制的影响

拟观察经颅直流电刺激作用于右侧背外侧前额叶皮层前后,被试在停止信号任务中的行为变化。实验共入组34名正常大学生,被试前后两次随机接受真刺激和伪刺激,两次刺激间隔7天,每个被试在接受刺激前后均完成停止信号任务,并在每次实验前后完成Stroop色词任务、词语流畅性、数字广度任务。结果发现真刺激作用于右侧背外侧前额叶皮层后停止信号反应时显著减小,但伪刺激条件下没有该趋势。本实验证明了作用于右侧背外侧前额叶皮层的经颅直流电刺激可以调节反应抑制能力,右侧背外侧前额叶皮层是反应抑制的重要脑区。     

7岁超常和常态儿童的信息加工速度

该研究以超常和常态儿童各25名(平均年龄分别为6岁10个月和6岁11个月)为被试,以选择反应、图形匹配、心理旋转、和抽象匹配为基本认知任务,对超常和常态儿童的信息加工速度作了比较研究。研究者对被试的正确率和反应时作了分析。结果表明：(1)超常儿童基本信息加工能力显著优于普通儿童,具体表现在反应时更短,或正确率更高。(2)超常儿童与常态儿童信息、加工的差异与任务难度有关,在选择反应和图形匹配任务中,超常儿童的反应时显著短于常态儿童。而且,在图形匹配任务中,任务难度越大,差异越显著。而在心里旋转和抽象匹配任务中,超常儿童的正确率显著高于常态儿童。(3)任务的难度无论对超常组被试还是常态组被试的反应时及反应正确率都有影响,但影响方式不太一样。在反应时上,随着任务难度的增加,两组被试的反应时都明显延长;但在正确率上,则随着任务难度的增加,常态组被试的正确率降低,而超常组被试的正确率基本稳定在一个较高的水平上,即任务难度问的差异不显著。     

不同趋近动机强度积极情绪对认知控制的影响

情绪的动机维度模型认为, 积极情绪对认知加工的影响受其趋近动机强度的调节, 高、低趋近动机积极情绪对认知加工的影响不同。本研究运用情绪图片诱发被试高、低趋近动机积极情绪, 采用停止信号任务和任务转换作业考察了不同趋近动机强度积极情绪对认知控制的影响。结果发现：(1)与中性条件相比, 高趋近动机积极情绪促进了停止信号任务中Go任务和任务转换作业中重复任务的反应执行。(2)在停止信号任务中, 相对于中性条件, 低趋近动机积极情绪条件下的停止信号反应时显著缩短; 在任务转换作业中, 低趋近动机积极情绪条件下的反应时转换损失和错误率转换损失均显著降低, 而高趋近动机积极情绪条件下的反应时转换损失显著增加。因此, 积极情绪对认知控制的影响受其趋近动机强度的调节, 即低趋近动机积极情绪增强认知灵活性, 提高停止反应与任务转换的速度; 而高趋近动机积极情绪增强认知稳定性, 加快停止信号任务中Go任务和任务转换作业中重复任务的反应执行, 增加了反应时转换损失。     

ADHD儿童的选择性抑制

采用较传统停止信号任务更为精确的选择性停止信号任务,探索ADHD的选择性抑制缺陷的机制。结果发现,ADHD儿童在选择性停止信号任务上,抑制失败的比率明显高于正常儿童,但是其执行加工速度和抑制加工速度与正常儿童没有差异,另外,ADHD儿童表现出了更大的反应变异性。研究认为,ADHD在选择性停止信号任务上的抑制缺陷并非由于抑制加工速度过慢所导致,而是由于其不能很好地维持最佳的激活状态所导致,状态调节理论更能反映ADHD的本质。     

小学五年级儿童执行功能特点研究

本研究旨在通过对小学五年级儿童的执行功能进行测试和训练,探究小学五年级学生注意转换能力、记忆刷新能力和抑制优势反应能力三种执行功能的特点.研究表明小学五年级儿童执行功能中的这三种能力是相互独立的,且具有不平衡性和可发展性特点.结果表明 ,小学五年级学生的注意转换能力明显低于大学生,同时也比成人平均水平低;记忆刷新能力优于成人平均水平;而抑制优势反应能力已基本达到成人平均水平.     

儿童执行功能对数学能力的预测模型

使用数点数广度任务(C-span)、Stroop任务、威斯康星卡片分类任务(WCST)测查儿童的执行功能,用《小学儿童数学能力测查量表》(一年级)、《韦克斯勒儿童智力测量》分别测查儿童的数学能力和智力,对64名小学一年级儿童的执行功能(抑制、转换、刷新)和数学能力的关系进行了研究,相关分析和回归分析发现,数学能力与执行功能任务测量都有显著相关,抑制、转换和刷新都分别对数学能力存在显著回归效应;在此基础上,建立了执行功能及其对儿童数学能力的预测模型。结果表明,抑制控制、转换和刷新都能对数学能力产生直接影响,但抑制控制还通过转换和刷新对数学能力产生间接影响。说明儿童数学能力的认知差异,主要在于抑制控制能力的差异,而抑制控制的差异又导致转换和刷新能力表现的差异。     

奖惩线索条件下内外倾个体的自主唤醒和行为反应

将停止信号任务和金钱激励延迟任务相结合,使用16导生理记录仪记录被试的生理指标,探讨内外倾者在动机凸显情景下的生理唤醒特点以及反应调节能力。结果发现,隐含奖励和惩罚线索呈现之后,内外倾者的心率增快,内倾者的皮肤电活动显著增强。在停止信号任务中的优势反应阶段,内外倾者表现为对奖励凸显线索刺激的反应时缩短;而在非优势反应阶段,和外倾者相比较,内倾者的抑制反应错误率增高。表明内外倾者在奖惩线索条件下表现出不同的生理唤醒特点和行为反应。     

3～6年级儿童整数数量表征与分数数量表征的关系

研究主要探讨了整数数量表征和分数数量表征的关系以及年级对两者关系的影响。实验对155名三至六年级儿童进行0~1分数数字线估计任务和0~1000整数数字线估计任务的测量。结果发现:(1)对于整数数字线估计,所有年级儿童均主要采取了线性表征;(2)对于分数数字线估计,五六年级儿童主要采取了线性表征,三四年级儿童没有明显的线性表征或对数表征的倾向;(3)整数数量表征和分数数量表征呈显著正相关,不过年级对两者的关系产生了影响,表现在只有五六年级儿童的整数数字线估计对分数数字线估计有显著预测作用。     

Trial-to-trial sequential dependencies in a social and non-social Simon task

Recent research has shown that joint-action effects in a social Simon task provide a good index of action co-representation. The present study aimed to specify the mechanisms underlying joint action by considering trial-to-trial transitions. Using non-social stimuli, we assigned a Simon task to two participants. Each was responsible for only one of two possible responses. This task was performed alone (Individual go/nogo task) and in cooperation with another person who was sitting alongside (Joint go/nogo task). As a further control task, we added a Standard Simon task. Replicating previous findings (Sebanz et al. in Cognition 88:B11-B21, 2003), we found no spatial compatibility effect in the Individual go/nogo task but we did find one in the Joint go/nogo task. A more detailed analysis showed that a sequential modulation of the Simon effect was present in both the Joint and the Individual go/nogo tasks. We found reliable Simon effects in trials following Simon compatible trials not only in the Joint go/nogo task but also to a somewhat smaller extent in the Individual go/nogo task. For both these go/nogo tasks, sequential modulation effects were stronger for nogo/go transitions than for go/go transitions. This suggests that low-level feature binding and repetition mechanisms contribute to the social Simon effect related to the specific requirement not to respond on nogo trials.     

Do you really represent my task? Sequential adaptation effects to unexpected events support referential coding for the joint Simon effect

Recent findings suggest that a Simon effect (SE) can be induced in Individual go/nogo tasks when responding next to an event-producing object salient enough to provide a reference for the spatial coding of one’s own action. However, there is skepticism against referential coding for the joint Simon effect (JSE) by proponents of task co-representation. In the present study, we tested assumptions of task co-representation and referential coding by introducing unexpected double response events in a joint go/nogo and a joint independent go/nogo task. In Experiment 1b, we tested if task representations are functionally similar in joint and standard Simon tasks. In Experiment 2, we tested sequential updating of task co-representation after unexpected single response events in the joint independent go/nogo task. Results showed increased JSEs following unexpected events in the joint go/nogo and joint independent go/nogo task (Experiment 1a). While the former finding is in line with the assumptions made by both accounts (task co-representation and referential coding), the latter finding supports referential coding. In contrast to Experiment 1a, we found a decreased SE after unexpected events in the standard Simon task (Experiment 1b), providing evidence against the functional equivalence assumption between joint and two-choice Simon tasks of the task co-representation account. Finally, we found an increased JSE also following unexpected single response events (Experiment 2), ruling out that the findings of the joint independent go/nogo task in Experiment 1a were due to a re-conceptualization of the task situation. In conclusion, our findings support referential coding also for the joint Simon effect.     

Is the go/no-go lexical decision task preferable to the yes/no task with developing readers?

The lexical decision task is probably the most common laboratory visual word identification task together with the naming task. In the usual setup, participants need to press the “yes” button when the stimulus is a word and the “no” button when the stimulus is not a word. A number of studies have employed this task with developing readers; however, error rates and/or response times tend to be quite high. One way to make the task easier for young readers is by employing a go/no-go procedure: “If word, press ‘yes’; if not, refrain from responding.” Here we conducted a lexical decision experiment that systematically compared the yes/no and go/no-go variants of the lexical decision task with developing readers (second- and fourth-grade children). Results showed that (a) error rates for words and nonwords were much lower in the go/no-go task than in the yes/no task, (b) lexical decision times were substantially faster in the go/no-go task, and (c) there was less variability in the latency data of the go/no-go task for high-frequency words. Thus, the go/no-go lexical decision task is preferable to the “standard” yes/no task when conducting experiments with developing readers.     

Predicting cognitive control from preschool to late adolescence and young adulthood

In this longitudinal study, the proportion of time preschoolers directed their attention away from rewarding stimuli during a delay-of-gratification task was positively associated with efficiency (greater speed without reduced accuracy) at responding to targets in a go/no-go task more than 10 years later. The overall findings suggest that preschoolers' ability to effectively direct their attention away from tempting aspects of the rewards in a delay-of-gratification task may be a developmental precursor for the ability to perform inhibitory tasks such as the go/no-go task years later. Because performance on the go/no-go task has previously been characterized as involving activation of fronto-striatal regions, the present findings also suggest that performance in the delay-of-gratification task may serve as an early marker of individual differences in the functional integrity of this circuitry.     

Is the go/no-go lexical decision task an alternative to the yes/no lexical decision task?

In the go/no-go lexical decision task (LDT), participants are instructed to respond as quickly as they can when a word is presented and not to respond if a nonword is presented. By minimizing part of the response selection process in the experimental task, the impact of response decision time on the obtained lexical decision time is probably reduced relative to the standard yes/no LDT (Gordon, 1983). Experiments 1 and 2 show that the go/no-go LDT is sensitive to the effects of word frequency and associative priming--the magnitude of these effects is similar with the two tasks. More important, the go/no-go LDT has a number of advantages with respect to the "standard" yes/no LDT: It offers faster response times, more accurate responding, and fewer processing demands than does the yes/no task. Accordingly, the go/no-go task appears to be an excellent alternative to the standard yes/no task.     

汉语多义单字词的识别优势效应

运用词汇判断、简单命名及辨别命名任务,考察汉语多义单字词的识别优势效应。结果显示,在三个任务中均发现了显著的多义词识别优势效应。在词汇判断和简单命名任务中,多义词识别的优势效应表现在低频词中;在辨别命名任务中,多义词识别优势效应同时表现在高、低频词中。实验结果支持了PDP模型,讨论了多义词识别优势效应产生的机制     

Transfer of response codes from choice-response to go/no-go tasks

The present study investigated the conditions for observing the Simon effect in go/no-go tasks. The Simon effect denotes faster and more accurate responses when irrelevant stimulus location and response location correspond than when they do not correspond. In four experiments, participants performed both in a choice-response task (CRT) and in a go/no-go task, and we varied the order and the similarity of the tasks. In the CRT, participants pressed a left key to one stimulus colour and a right key to another stimulus colour; in the go/no-go task, participants pressed one (e.g., left) key to one stimulus colour and refrained from responding to the other stimulus colour. As expected, Simon effects were consistently observed in the CRT. In contrast, Simon effects in the go/no-go task were only observed when it followed the CRT and when the mapping of stimulus colours to response locations was preserved between tasks (i.e., in Experiment 4). Results suggest that transfer of a particular S–R rule including response location from the CRT to the go/no-go task was responsible for the Simon effect in the latter task. In general, results are consistent with a response-discrimination account of the Simon effect.     

A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect

Simon effects might partly reflect stimulus-triggered response activation. According to the response-discrimination hypothesis, however, stimulus-triggered response activation shows up in Simon effects only when stimulus locations match the top-down selected spatial codes used to discriminate between alternative responses. Five experiments support this hypothesis. In Experiment 1, spatial codes of each response differed by horizontal and vertical axis position, yet one axis discriminated between alternative responses, whereas the other did not. Simon effects resulted for targets on discriminating axes only. In Experiment 2, both spatial axes discriminated between responses, and targets on both axes produced Simon effects. In Experiment 3, Simon effects resulted for a spatial choice-reaction task but not for a go/no-go task. Even in the go/no-go task, a Simon effect was restored when a two-choice reaction task preceded the go/no-go task (Experiment 4) or when participants initiated trials with responses spatially discriminated from the go response (Experiment 5).     

Conditions under which children experience inhibitory difficulty with a "button-press" go/no-go task

Go/no-go tasks seem to provide a simple marker of inhibitory development in young children. Children are told to respond to one stimulus on go trials but to make no response to another stimulus on no-go trials; responding on no-go trials is assumed to reflect a failure to inhibit the go response. However, there is evidence to suggest that a type of go/no-go task, which we call the "button-press" task, does not require inhibition. We investigated the conditions under which young children (M=3 years 6 months, N=120) experience inhibitory difficulty with this type of task. The data suggest that the speed of stimulus presentation is crucial and that other studies using this type of task have presented the stimuli too briefly. The importance of establishing the inhibitory credentials of a task before it is used as a marker of inhibitory control is emphasized.     

The role of the prefrontal cortex in the go/no-go task in humans: a positron emission tomography study

To study the localization of response inhibition in the human brain, especially the role of the prefrontal cortex and laterality of its activation, we used positron emission tomography (PET) to measure regional cerebral blood flow in 11 right-handed participants while they performed a go/no-go and a simple control reaction-time task. In the control task, the participants responded to a target stimulus following a cue stimulus. In the go/no-go task they were instructed to inhibit the required response if the target stimulus did not appear. These tasks were performed using each hand. The right prefrontal cortex was found to be significantly activated when the go/no-go task was compared with the control task, regardless of the responding hand. The results indicated that response inhibition per se may be controlled by the right prefrontal cortex regardless of response hand for right-handed participants.