Camilo Arévalo-Romero, Stefanella Costa-Cordella, Daniel Rojas-Líbano
{"title":"情境因素在神经认知加工中的作用:对认知任务中反应类型影响的系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Camilo Arévalo-Romero, Stefanella Costa-Cordella, Daniel Rojas-Líbano","doi":"10.1080/20445911.2023.2260050","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTCognitive performance depends on contextual elements, such as the response type (“Go/No-Go” (GNG) or “Two-Alternative Choice” (TAC)) used in experimental tasks. In general, it is assumed that GNG shows faster response times and lower error rates than TAC. To systematically analyze these effects, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of GNG and TAC on cognitive processing across experimental paradigms. After examination of diverse databases, 24 scientific articles were included. We found eight different cognitive tasks, presentling results mainly of behavioural variables, with only three studies including neural recordings. We found that GNG shows faster response times and lower error rates than TAC, although this changes depending on task configurations. The scarce neural evidence suggests that the differences might occur at early processing stages. Future simultaneously recorded behavioural and electrophysiological data is needed to gain better understanding of these contextual effects.KEYWORDS: Cognitive processes; experimental cognitive tasksGo/No-GoTwo-Alternative Choice; visual information processing; contextual factors Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementFree access to meta-analysis data in OSF (https://osf.io/c6tnb). In OSF you can also access all the material related to the process of this work (https://osf.io/jkbev/files/osfstorage).Notes1 For this work, “target stimulus” will refer to the content of the visual stimulus that meets the task’s requirement. When it appears on the screen, the participants must direct an open GNG response (i.e., Go response) and an affirmative response in TAC (i.e., Yes response).2 We are indebted to an anonymous reviewer of this article for suggesting the idea of this plot.3 Wühr and Heuer's (Citation2022) results are not considered here because they counterbalanced the target stimulus for each participant.Additional informationFundingThis project was financed by the Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo de Chile (ANID) through the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (FONDECYT) Iniciación en Investigación N° 11190604 granted to DRL and FONDECYT Postdoctorado N° 3220844 granted to SCC.","PeriodicalId":47483,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of contextual factors on neurocognitive processing: a systematic review with meta-analysis of the effect of response types in cognitive tasks\",\"authors\":\"Camilo Arévalo-Romero, Stefanella Costa-Cordella, Daniel Rojas-Líbano\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20445911.2023.2260050\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACTCognitive performance depends on contextual elements, such as the response type (“Go/No-Go” (GNG) or “Two-Alternative Choice” (TAC)) used in experimental tasks. In general, it is assumed that GNG shows faster response times and lower error rates than TAC. To systematically analyze these effects, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of GNG and TAC on cognitive processing across experimental paradigms. After examination of diverse databases, 24 scientific articles were included. We found eight different cognitive tasks, presentling results mainly of behavioural variables, with only three studies including neural recordings. We found that GNG shows faster response times and lower error rates than TAC, although this changes depending on task configurations. The scarce neural evidence suggests that the differences might occur at early processing stages. Future simultaneously recorded behavioural and electrophysiological data is needed to gain better understanding of these contextual effects.KEYWORDS: Cognitive processes; experimental cognitive tasksGo/No-GoTwo-Alternative Choice; visual information processing; contextual factors Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementFree access to meta-analysis data in OSF (https://osf.io/c6tnb). In OSF you can also access all the material related to the process of this work (https://osf.io/jkbev/files/osfstorage).Notes1 For this work, “target stimulus” will refer to the content of the visual stimulus that meets the task’s requirement. When it appears on the screen, the participants must direct an open GNG response (i.e., Go response) and an affirmative response in TAC (i.e., Yes response).2 We are indebted to an anonymous reviewer of this article for suggesting the idea of this plot.3 Wühr and Heuer's (Citation2022) results are not considered here because they counterbalanced the target stimulus for each participant.Additional informationFundingThis project was financed by the Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo de Chile (ANID) through the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (FONDECYT) Iniciación en Investigación N° 11190604 granted to DRL and FONDECYT Postdoctorado N° 3220844 granted to SCC.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cognitive Psychology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cognitive Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2023.2260050\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2023.2260050","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
摘要认知表现取决于情境因素,如实验任务中使用的反应类型(“去/不去”(GNG)或“两种选择”(TAC))。通常,假设GNG的响应时间比TAC快,错误率比TAC低。为了系统分析这些影响,我们进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,以评估GNG和TAC在不同实验范式下对认知加工的影响。在对不同数据库进行检查后,纳入了24篇科学文章。我们发现了8种不同的认知任务,主要呈现行为变量的结果,只有3项研究包括神经记录。我们发现GNG比TAC的响应时间更快,错误率更低,尽管这取决于任务配置。缺乏的神经学证据表明,这种差异可能发生在早期处理阶段。未来需要同时记录行为和电生理数据,以更好地理解这些背景效应。关键词:认知过程;实验认知任务go /No-Go;视觉信息处理;背景因素披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。数据可用性statementosf中元分析数据的免费访问(https://osf.io/c6tnb)。在OSF中,您还可以访问与此工作过程相关的所有材料(https://osf.io/jkbev/files/osfstorage)。注1在本工作中,“目标刺激”是指满足任务要求的视觉刺激的内容。当它出现在屏幕上时,参与者必须指示一个开放的GNG响应(即Go响应)和TAC中的肯定响应(即Yes响应)我们感谢本文的一位匿名评论者,他提出了这个情节的想法w和Heuer (Citation2022)的结果在这里不被考虑,因为他们平衡了每个参与者的目标刺激。本项目由智利国家研究与发展机构Investigación (ANID)资助,通过智利国家研究与发展基金会Científico y Tecnológico (FONDECYT) Iniciación en Investigación (N°11190604)资助DRL, FONDECYT博士后基金(N°3220844)资助SCC。
The role of contextual factors on neurocognitive processing: a systematic review with meta-analysis of the effect of response types in cognitive tasks
ABSTRACTCognitive performance depends on contextual elements, such as the response type (“Go/No-Go” (GNG) or “Two-Alternative Choice” (TAC)) used in experimental tasks. In general, it is assumed that GNG shows faster response times and lower error rates than TAC. To systematically analyze these effects, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of GNG and TAC on cognitive processing across experimental paradigms. After examination of diverse databases, 24 scientific articles were included. We found eight different cognitive tasks, presentling results mainly of behavioural variables, with only three studies including neural recordings. We found that GNG shows faster response times and lower error rates than TAC, although this changes depending on task configurations. The scarce neural evidence suggests that the differences might occur at early processing stages. Future simultaneously recorded behavioural and electrophysiological data is needed to gain better understanding of these contextual effects.KEYWORDS: Cognitive processes; experimental cognitive tasksGo/No-GoTwo-Alternative Choice; visual information processing; contextual factors Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data availability statementFree access to meta-analysis data in OSF (https://osf.io/c6tnb). In OSF you can also access all the material related to the process of this work (https://osf.io/jkbev/files/osfstorage).Notes1 For this work, “target stimulus” will refer to the content of the visual stimulus that meets the task’s requirement. When it appears on the screen, the participants must direct an open GNG response (i.e., Go response) and an affirmative response in TAC (i.e., Yes response).2 We are indebted to an anonymous reviewer of this article for suggesting the idea of this plot.3 Wühr and Heuer's (Citation2022) results are not considered here because they counterbalanced the target stimulus for each participant.Additional informationFundingThis project was financed by the Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo de Chile (ANID) through the Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico (FONDECYT) Iniciación en Investigación N° 11190604 granted to DRL and FONDECYT Postdoctorado N° 3220844 granted to SCC.