A model-based approach to disentangling facilitation and interference effects in conflict tasks.

IF 5.1 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Nathan J Evans, Mathieu Servant
{"title":"A model-based approach to disentangling facilitation and interference effects in conflict tasks.","authors":"Nathan J Evans,&nbsp;Mathieu Servant","doi":"10.1037/rev0000357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Conflict tasks have become one of the most dominant paradigms within cognitive psychology, with their key finding being the conflict effect: That participants are slower and less accurate when task-irrelevant information conflicts with task-relevant information (i.e., incompatible trials), compared to when these sources of information are consistent (i.e., compatible trials). However, the conflict effect can consist of two separate effects: Facilitation effects, which is the amount of benefit provided by consistent task-irrelevant information, and interference effects, which is the amount of impairment caused by conflicting task-irrelevant information. While previous studies have attempted to disentangle these effects using neutral trials, which contrast compatible and incompatible trials to trials that are designed to have neutral task-irrelevant information, these analyses rely on the assumptions of Donder's subtractive method, which are difficult to verify and may be violated in some circumstances. Here, we develop a model-based approach for disentangling facilitation and interference effects, which extends the existing diffusion model for conflict tasks (DMC) framework to allow for different levels of automatic activation in compatible and incompatible trials. Comprehensive parameter recovery assessments display the robust measurement properties of our model-based approach, which we apply to nine previous data sets from the flanker (6) and Simon (3) tasks. Our findings suggest asymmetric facilitation and interference effects, where interference effects appear to be present for most participants across most studies, whereas facilitation effects appear to be small or nonexistent. We believe that our novel model-based approach provides an important step forward for understanding how information processing operates in conflict tasks, allowing researchers to assess the convergence or divergence between experimental-based (i.e., neutral trials) and model-based approaches when investigating facilitation and interference effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":21016,"journal":{"name":"Psychological review","volume":"129 5","pages":"1183-1209"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000357","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Conflict tasks have become one of the most dominant paradigms within cognitive psychology, with their key finding being the conflict effect: That participants are slower and less accurate when task-irrelevant information conflicts with task-relevant information (i.e., incompatible trials), compared to when these sources of information are consistent (i.e., compatible trials). However, the conflict effect can consist of two separate effects: Facilitation effects, which is the amount of benefit provided by consistent task-irrelevant information, and interference effects, which is the amount of impairment caused by conflicting task-irrelevant information. While previous studies have attempted to disentangle these effects using neutral trials, which contrast compatible and incompatible trials to trials that are designed to have neutral task-irrelevant information, these analyses rely on the assumptions of Donder's subtractive method, which are difficult to verify and may be violated in some circumstances. Here, we develop a model-based approach for disentangling facilitation and interference effects, which extends the existing diffusion model for conflict tasks (DMC) framework to allow for different levels of automatic activation in compatible and incompatible trials. Comprehensive parameter recovery assessments display the robust measurement properties of our model-based approach, which we apply to nine previous data sets from the flanker (6) and Simon (3) tasks. Our findings suggest asymmetric facilitation and interference effects, where interference effects appear to be present for most participants across most studies, whereas facilitation effects appear to be small or nonexistent. We believe that our novel model-based approach provides an important step forward for understanding how information processing operates in conflict tasks, allowing researchers to assess the convergence or divergence between experimental-based (i.e., neutral trials) and model-based approaches when investigating facilitation and interference effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

冲突任务中促进和干扰效应的模型分析。
冲突任务已经成为认知心理学中最主要的范式之一,他们的主要发现是冲突效应:当任务无关信息与任务相关信息冲突(即不相容试验)时,与这些信息来源一致(即相容试验)时相比,参与者的反应速度更慢,准确性更低。然而,冲突效应可以由两个独立的效应组成:促进效应,即一致的任务无关信息提供的利益量;干扰效应,即冲突的任务无关信息造成的损害量。虽然以前的研究试图用中性试验来解开这些影响,将相容和不相容的试验与设计为具有中性任务无关信息的试验进行对比,但这些分析依赖于Donder减法的假设,这很难验证,在某些情况下可能会被违反。在这里,我们开发了一种基于模型的方法来解开促进和干扰效应,它扩展了现有的冲突任务扩散模型(DMC)框架,以允许在兼容和不兼容试验中不同程度的自动激活。综合参数恢复评估显示了我们基于模型的方法的鲁棒测量特性,我们将其应用于来自flanker(6)和Simon(3)任务的九个先前数据集。我们的研究结果表明不对称的促进和干扰效应,在大多数研究中,干扰效应似乎存在于大多数参与者身上,而促进效应似乎很小或不存在。我们相信,我们新颖的基于模型的方法为理解冲突任务中的信息处理如何运作提供了重要的一步,使研究人员能够在调查促进和干扰效应时评估基于实验(即中立试验)和基于模型的方法之间的趋同或分歧。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological review
Psychological review 医学-心理学
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
97
期刊介绍: Psychological Review publishes articles that make important theoretical contributions to any area of scientific psychology, including systematic evaluation of alternative theories.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信