目标相关证据和目标相关熟悉程度对冲突识别中的个体差异和发展差异的不同贡献。

IF 2.3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Alexander Weigard, Takakuni Suzuki, Lena J. Skalaban, May Conley, Alexandra O. Cohen, Hugh Garavan, Mary M. Heitzeg, B. J. Casey, Chandra Sripada, Andrew Heathcote
{"title":"目标相关证据和目标相关熟悉程度对冲突识别中的个体差异和发展差异的不同贡献。","authors":"Alexander Weigard,&nbsp;Takakuni Suzuki,&nbsp;Lena J. Skalaban,&nbsp;May Conley,&nbsp;Alexandra O. Cohen,&nbsp;Hugh Garavan,&nbsp;Mary M. Heitzeg,&nbsp;B. J. Casey,&nbsp;Chandra Sripada,&nbsp;Andrew Heathcote","doi":"10.1111/cogs.70019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recent studies using the diffusion decision model find that performance across many cognitive control tasks can be largely attributed to a task-general efficiency of evidence accumulation (EEA) factor that reflects individuals’ ability to selectively gather evidence relevant to task goals. However, estimates of EEA from an n-back “conflict recognition” paradigm in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development<sup>SM</sup> (ABCD) Study, a large, diverse sample of youth, appear to contradict these findings. EEA estimates from “lure” trials—which present stimuli that are familiar (i.e., presented previously) but do not meet formal criteria for being a target—show inconsistent relations with EEA estimates from other trials and display atypical v-shaped bivariate distributions, suggesting many individuals are responding based largely on stimulus familiarity rather than goal-relevant stimulus features. We present a new formal model of evidence integration in conflict recognition tasks that distinguishes individuals’ EEA for goal-relevant evidence from their use of goal-irrelevant familiarity. We then investigate developmental, cognitive, and clinical correlates of these novel parameters. Parameters for EEA and goal-irrelevant familiarity-based processing showed strong correlations across levels of n-back load, suggesting they are task-general dimensions that influence individuals’ performance regardless of working memory demands. Only EEA showed large, robust developmental differences in the ABCD sample and an independent age-diverse sample. EEA also exhibited higher test-retest reliability and uniquely meaningful associations with clinically relevant dimensions. These findings establish a principled modeling framework for characterizing conflict recognition mechanisms and have several broader implications for research on individual and developmental differences in cognitive control.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"48 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.70019","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dissociable Contributions of Goal-Relevant Evidence and Goal-Irrelevant Familiarity to Individual and Developmental Differences in Conflict Recognition\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Weigard,&nbsp;Takakuni Suzuki,&nbsp;Lena J. Skalaban,&nbsp;May Conley,&nbsp;Alexandra O. Cohen,&nbsp;Hugh Garavan,&nbsp;Mary M. Heitzeg,&nbsp;B. J. Casey,&nbsp;Chandra Sripada,&nbsp;Andrew Heathcote\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cogs.70019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Recent studies using the diffusion decision model find that performance across many cognitive control tasks can be largely attributed to a task-general efficiency of evidence accumulation (EEA) factor that reflects individuals’ ability to selectively gather evidence relevant to task goals. However, estimates of EEA from an n-back “conflict recognition” paradigm in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development<sup>SM</sup> (ABCD) Study, a large, diverse sample of youth, appear to contradict these findings. EEA estimates from “lure” trials—which present stimuli that are familiar (i.e., presented previously) but do not meet formal criteria for being a target—show inconsistent relations with EEA estimates from other trials and display atypical v-shaped bivariate distributions, suggesting many individuals are responding based largely on stimulus familiarity rather than goal-relevant stimulus features. We present a new formal model of evidence integration in conflict recognition tasks that distinguishes individuals’ EEA for goal-relevant evidence from their use of goal-irrelevant familiarity. We then investigate developmental, cognitive, and clinical correlates of these novel parameters. Parameters for EEA and goal-irrelevant familiarity-based processing showed strong correlations across levels of n-back load, suggesting they are task-general dimensions that influence individuals’ performance regardless of working memory demands. Only EEA showed large, robust developmental differences in the ABCD sample and an independent age-diverse sample. EEA also exhibited higher test-retest reliability and uniquely meaningful associations with clinically relevant dimensions. These findings establish a principled modeling framework for characterizing conflict recognition mechanisms and have several broader implications for research on individual and developmental differences in cognitive control.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Science\",\"volume\":\"48 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.70019\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70019\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70019","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近使用扩散决策模型进行的研究发现,许多认知控制任务的表现在很大程度上可归因于任务一般的证据积累效率(EEA)因素,该因素反映了个体选择性地收集与任务目标相关的证据的能力。然而,在青少年脑认知发展研究(ABCD)(一项大型、多样化的青少年样本研究)中,通过n-back "冲突识别 "范式得出的EEA估计值似乎与这些发现相矛盾。引诱 "试验中的EEA估计值与其他试验中的EEA估计值的关系并不一致,而且显示出不典型的V型双变量分布,这表明许多个体主要是根据刺激物的熟悉程度而不是与目标相关的刺激物特征来做出反应的。我们提出了冲突识别任务中证据整合的新形式模型,该模型将个体对目标相关证据的 EEA 与他们对目标无关熟悉度的使用区分开来。然后,我们对这些新参数的发展、认知和临床相关性进行了研究。EEA参数和基于目标相关熟悉度的处理参数在不同的n-back负荷水平上显示出很强的相关性,这表明它们是任务的一般维度,无论工作记忆需求如何都会影响个体的表现。在 ABCD 样本和一个独立的不同年龄样本中,只有 EEA 显示出巨大而稳健的发展差异。此外,EEA 还表现出更高的测试再测可靠性以及与临床相关维度的独特关联。这些发现为描述冲突识别机制建立了一个原则性的建模框架,并对认知控制的个体差异和发展差异研究产生了一些更广泛的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Dissociable Contributions of Goal-Relevant Evidence and Goal-Irrelevant Familiarity to Individual and Developmental Differences in Conflict Recognition

Dissociable Contributions of Goal-Relevant Evidence and Goal-Irrelevant Familiarity to Individual and Developmental Differences in Conflict Recognition

Recent studies using the diffusion decision model find that performance across many cognitive control tasks can be largely attributed to a task-general efficiency of evidence accumulation (EEA) factor that reflects individuals’ ability to selectively gather evidence relevant to task goals. However, estimates of EEA from an n-back “conflict recognition” paradigm in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive DevelopmentSM (ABCD) Study, a large, diverse sample of youth, appear to contradict these findings. EEA estimates from “lure” trials—which present stimuli that are familiar (i.e., presented previously) but do not meet formal criteria for being a target—show inconsistent relations with EEA estimates from other trials and display atypical v-shaped bivariate distributions, suggesting many individuals are responding based largely on stimulus familiarity rather than goal-relevant stimulus features. We present a new formal model of evidence integration in conflict recognition tasks that distinguishes individuals’ EEA for goal-relevant evidence from their use of goal-irrelevant familiarity. We then investigate developmental, cognitive, and clinical correlates of these novel parameters. Parameters for EEA and goal-irrelevant familiarity-based processing showed strong correlations across levels of n-back load, suggesting they are task-general dimensions that influence individuals’ performance regardless of working memory demands. Only EEA showed large, robust developmental differences in the ABCD sample and an independent age-diverse sample. EEA also exhibited higher test-retest reliability and uniquely meaningful associations with clinically relevant dimensions. These findings establish a principled modeling framework for characterizing conflict recognition mechanisms and have several broader implications for research on individual and developmental differences in cognitive 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
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
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