表达:在比例一致的 Stroop 范式中,没有瞳孔测量证据表明存在费力的主动控制。

IF 1.5 3区 心理学 Q4 PHYSIOLOGY
Nabil Hasshim, Molly Carruthers, Ludovic Ferrand, Maria Augustinova, Benjamin A Parris
{"title":"表达:在比例一致的 Stroop 范式中,没有瞳孔测量证据表明存在费力的主动控制。","authors":"Nabil Hasshim, Molly Carruthers, Ludovic Ferrand, Maria Augustinova, Benjamin A Parris","doi":"10.1177/17470218241235671","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cognitive control is the ability to allocate attention away from stimuli that are irrelevant to achieving a goal, towards stimuli that are. When conflict is anticipated, attention is biased in a global, top-down manner called proactive control and this effortful type of cognitive control is engaged before stimulus onset. The list-wise congruency proportion (LWPC) effect, where the Stroop congruency effect is reduced when there are more incongruent than congruent trials compared to vice versa, has been viewed as one of the prime signatures of this type of cognitive control. However, there has been recent debate about the extent to which this effect should be attributed to proactive control instead of alternative explanations such as simpler associative learning or reactive control. Thus, by using pupillometry (i.e., an indicator of cognitive effort), the present study investigated the extent to which LWPC effects result from effortful proactive control. Experiment 1 employed a classic proportion congruency manipulation, while Experiment 2 replaced congruent trials with neutral trials to control for potential effects of associative learning. While in line with past findings, proportion congruency effects were obtained in response times of both experiments and pupillometry showed both proportion congruency and Stroop effects after stimulus onset, no differences in pupil sizes were found during the preparatory phase. Therefore, these results do not support the idea that the observed LWPC effects are due to participants engaging in effortful proactive control.</p>","PeriodicalId":20869,"journal":{"name":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"884-896"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11992641/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"No pupillometric evidence for effortful proactive control in the proportion-congruent Stroop paradigm.\",\"authors\":\"Nabil Hasshim, Molly Carruthers, Ludovic Ferrand, Maria Augustinova, Benjamin A Parris\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17470218241235671\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Cognitive control is the ability to allocate attention away from stimuli that are irrelevant to achieving a goal, towards stimuli that are. When conflict is anticipated, attention is biased in a global, top-down manner called proactive control and this effortful type of cognitive control is engaged before stimulus onset. The list-wise congruency proportion (LWPC) effect, where the Stroop congruency effect is reduced when there are more incongruent than congruent trials compared to vice versa, has been viewed as one of the prime signatures of this type of cognitive control. However, there has been recent debate about the extent to which this effect should be attributed to proactive control instead of alternative explanations such as simpler associative learning or reactive control. Thus, by using pupillometry (i.e., an indicator of cognitive effort), the present study investigated the extent to which LWPC effects result from effortful proactive control. Experiment 1 employed a classic proportion congruency manipulation, while Experiment 2 replaced congruent trials with neutral trials to control for potential effects of associative learning. While in line with past findings, proportion congruency effects were obtained in response times of both experiments and pupillometry showed both proportion congruency and Stroop effects after stimulus onset, no differences in pupil sizes were found during the preparatory phase. Therefore, these results do not support the idea that the observed LWPC effects are due to participants engaging in effortful proactive control.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"884-896\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11992641/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218241235671\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHYSIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218241235671","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

认知控制是指将注意力从与实现目标无关的刺激中转移到与实现目标有关的刺激上的能力。当预期会发生冲突时,注意力会以一种全局性的、自上而下的方式进行偏移,这种方式被称为主动控制,这种费力的认知控制类型会在刺激开始之前就发挥作用。列表一致性比例效应(list-wise congruency proportion,LWPC)被认为是这种认知控制的主要特征之一,在这种效应中,当不一致的试验多于一致的试验时,Stroop 一致性效应就会减弱,反之亦然。然而,最近关于这种效应在多大程度上应归因于主动控制而不是其他解释(如更简单的联想学习或反应控制)的问题一直存在争议。因此,本研究通过使用瞳孔测量法(即认知努力的指标),研究了LWPC效应在多大程度上是由努力的主动控制所导致的。实验一采用了经典的比例一致性操纵,而实验二则用中性试验取代了一致性试验,以控制联想学习的潜在影响。与过去的研究结果一致,两个实验的反应时间都出现了比例一致效应,瞳孔测量也显示刺激开始后出现了比例一致效应和斯特罗普效应,但在准备阶段却没有发现瞳孔大小的差异。因此,这些结果并不支持所观察到的 LWPC 效应是由于参与者进行了费力的主动控制这一观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
No pupillometric evidence for effortful proactive control in the proportion-congruent Stroop paradigm.

Cognitive control is the ability to allocate attention away from stimuli that are irrelevant to achieving a goal, towards stimuli that are. When conflict is anticipated, attention is biased in a global, top-down manner called proactive control and this effortful type of cognitive control is engaged before stimulus onset. The list-wise congruency proportion (LWPC) effect, where the Stroop congruency effect is reduced when there are more incongruent than congruent trials compared to vice versa, has been viewed as one of the prime signatures of this type of cognitive control. However, there has been recent debate about the extent to which this effect should be attributed to proactive control instead of alternative explanations such as simpler associative learning or reactive control. Thus, by using pupillometry (i.e., an indicator of cognitive effort), the present study investigated the extent to which LWPC effects result from effortful proactive control. Experiment 1 employed a classic proportion congruency manipulation, while Experiment 2 replaced congruent trials with neutral trials to control for potential effects of associative learning. While in line with past findings, proportion congruency effects were obtained in response times of both experiments and pupillometry showed both proportion congruency and Stroop effects after stimulus onset, no differences in pupil sizes were found during the preparatory phase. Therefore, these results do not support the idea that the observed LWPC effects are due to participants engaging in effortful proactive control.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
178
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Promoting the interests of scientific psychology and its researchers, QJEP, the journal of the Experimental Psychology Society, is a leading journal with a long-standing tradition of publishing cutting-edge research. Several articles have become classic papers in the fields of attention, perception, learning, memory, language, and reasoning. The journal publishes original articles on any topic within the field of experimental psychology (including comparative research). These include substantial experimental reports, review papers, rapid communications (reporting novel techniques or ground breaking results), comments (on articles previously published in QJEP or on issues of general interest to experimental psychologists), and book reviews. Experimental results are welcomed from all relevant techniques, including behavioural testing, brain imaging and computational modelling. QJEP offers a competitive publication time-scale. Accepted Rapid Communications have priority in the publication cycle and usually appear in print within three months. We aim to publish all accepted (but uncorrected) articles online within seven days. Our Latest Articles page offers immediate publication of articles upon reaching their final form. The journal offers an open access option called Open Select, enabling authors to meet funder requirements to make their article free to read online for all in perpetuity. Authors also benefit from a broad and diverse subscription base that delivers the journal contents to a world-wide readership. Together these features ensure that the journal offers authors the opportunity to raise the visibility of their work to a global audience.
×
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