控制探戈:主动控制与被动控制之间的相互作用。

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-25 DOI:10.1037/xge0001585
Giada Viviani, Antonino Visalli, Maria Montefinese, Antonino Vallesi, Ettore Ambrosini
{"title":"控制探戈:主动控制与被动控制之间的相互作用。","authors":"Giada Viviani, Antonino Visalli, Maria Montefinese, Antonino Vallesi, Ettore Ambrosini","doi":"10.1037/xge0001585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cognitive control has been theorized operating through two distinct mechanisms, proactive and reactive control, as posited by the dual mechanism of control model. Despite its potential to explain cognitive control variability, the supporting evidence for this model remains inconclusive. Prior studies frequently employed the Stroop task to assess this model, manipulating the proportion congruency (PC) at the list-wide and/or item-specific levels to target proactive and reactive control, respectively. However, these manipulations have been questioned as they may invoke low-level associative learning instead of control-driven mechanisms. Although solutions have been proposed to address these concerns, they still have limitations and impracticalities. In pursuit of a clearer understanding of this issue, we manipulated proactive and reactive control simultaneously to more directly investigate their separability. We conducted two experiments using a peripheral and a perifoveal spatial Stroop task version, respectively, and we adopted state-of-the-art methodologies, leveraging trial-level multilevel modeling analytical approaches, to effectively estimate the Stroop effect and its control-related modulations while controlling for confounding factors. Notably, we manipulated both list-wide and item-specific PCs at the trial level, allowing for a fine-grained analysis. Our results provide compelling evidence for the existence of a list-wide, PC-dependent proactive control mechanism, influencing Stroop performance independently of reactive control and confounding factors. Additionally, an item-specific PC-dependent reactive control effect was found to influence Stroop performance only in interaction with proactive control. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the interplay between proactive and reactive control mechanisms, shedding light on the intricate nature of cognitive control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tango of control: The interplay between proactive and reactive control.\",\"authors\":\"Giada Viviani, Antonino Visalli, Maria Montefinese, Antonino Vallesi, Ettore Ambrosini\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xge0001585\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Cognitive control has been theorized operating through two distinct mechanisms, proactive and reactive control, as posited by the dual mechanism of control model. Despite its potential to explain cognitive control variability, the supporting evidence for this model remains inconclusive. Prior studies frequently employed the Stroop task to assess this model, manipulating the proportion congruency (PC) at the list-wide and/or item-specific levels to target proactive and reactive control, respectively. However, these manipulations have been questioned as they may invoke low-level associative learning instead of control-driven mechanisms. Although solutions have been proposed to address these concerns, they still have limitations and impracticalities. In pursuit of a clearer understanding of this issue, we manipulated proactive and reactive control simultaneously to more directly investigate their separability. We conducted two experiments using a peripheral and a perifoveal spatial Stroop task version, respectively, and we adopted state-of-the-art methodologies, leveraging trial-level multilevel modeling analytical approaches, to effectively estimate the Stroop effect and its control-related modulations while controlling for confounding factors. Notably, we manipulated both list-wide and item-specific PCs at the trial level, allowing for a fine-grained analysis. Our results provide compelling evidence for the existence of a list-wide, PC-dependent proactive control mechanism, influencing Stroop performance independently of reactive control and confounding factors. Additionally, an item-specific PC-dependent reactive control effect was found to influence Stroop performance only in interaction with proactive control. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the interplay between proactive and reactive control mechanisms, shedding light on the intricate nature of cognitive control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001585\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001585","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

认知控制被认为是通过两种不同的机制运作的,即主动控制和被动控制,正如控制的双重机制模型所假设的那样。尽管该模型具有解释认知控制变异的潜力,但其支持证据仍不确定。之前的研究经常使用 Stroop 任务来评估这一模型,在整个列表和/或特定项目的水平上操纵比例一致性(PC),以分别针对主动和被动控制。然而,这些操作受到了质疑,因为它们可能会调用低水平的联想学习,而不是控制驱动机制。虽然已经有人提出了解决这些问题的方案,但它们仍然存在局限性和不实用性。为了更清楚地了解这一问题,我们同时操纵了主动控制和被动控制,以更直接地研究它们之间的可分离性。我们采用了最先进的方法,利用试验水平多层次建模分析方法,在控制混杂因素的同时,有效地估计了Stroop效应及其控制相关的调节。值得注意的是,我们在试验水平上操纵了整个列表和特定项目的 PCs,从而实现了精细分析。我们的研究结果提供了令人信服的证据,证明存在着一种依赖于全列表 PC 的主动控制机制,这种机制对 Stroop 表现的影响不受反应控制和干扰因素的影响。此外,我们还发现,特定项目的 PC 依赖性反应控制效应只有在与主动控制相互作用时才会影响 Stroop 表现。这些发现有助于更好地理解主动和被动控制机制之间的相互作用,揭示认知控制的复杂本质。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 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。
Tango of control: The interplay between proactive and reactive control.

Cognitive control has been theorized operating through two distinct mechanisms, proactive and reactive control, as posited by the dual mechanism of control model. Despite its potential to explain cognitive control variability, the supporting evidence for this model remains inconclusive. Prior studies frequently employed the Stroop task to assess this model, manipulating the proportion congruency (PC) at the list-wide and/or item-specific levels to target proactive and reactive control, respectively. However, these manipulations have been questioned as they may invoke low-level associative learning instead of control-driven mechanisms. Although solutions have been proposed to address these concerns, they still have limitations and impracticalities. In pursuit of a clearer understanding of this issue, we manipulated proactive and reactive control simultaneously to more directly investigate their separability. We conducted two experiments using a peripheral and a perifoveal spatial Stroop task version, respectively, and we adopted state-of-the-art methodologies, leveraging trial-level multilevel modeling analytical approaches, to effectively estimate the Stroop effect and its control-related modulations while controlling for confounding factors. Notably, we manipulated both list-wide and item-specific PCs at the trial level, allowing for a fine-grained analysis. Our results provide compelling evidence for the existence of a list-wide, PC-dependent proactive control mechanism, influencing Stroop performance independently of reactive control and confounding factors. Additionally, an item-specific PC-dependent reactive control effect was found to influence Stroop performance only in interaction with proactive control. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the interplay between proactive and reactive control mechanisms, shedding light on the intricate nature of cognitive control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
×
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