在侧卫任务、Stroop任务和去/不去任务中,ERN和Pe的心理测量信度:直接和概念上的复制。

IF 2.8 2区 心理学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES
Amanda Holbrook, Bohyun Park, Scott A Baldwin, Anja Riesel, Michael J Larson, Peter Clayson
{"title":"在侧卫任务、Stroop任务和去/不去任务中,ERN和Pe的心理测量信度:直接和概念上的复制。","authors":"Amanda Holbrook, Bohyun Park, Scott A Baldwin, Anja Riesel, Michael J Larson, Peter Clayson","doi":"10.1111/psyp.70042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The effectiveness of error-related negativity (ERN) in assessing individual differences hinges on its psychometric reliability. Despite evidence that the task used to record ERN moderates internal consistency, this moderation is rarely examined within the same sample, risking inaccurate generalizations of psychometrics. A direct and conceptual replication of Meyer et al. (2013, Psychophysiology) was conducted in 182 participants to assess the internal consistency of ERN from flanker, go/no-go, and Stroop tasks as a function of increasing trials. Analyses were extended to include error positivity (Pe) and difference scores (ΔERN, ΔPe), and generalizability theory and multilevel models were used to statistically compare internal consistency across tasks. Overall, data supported the internal consistency of results across three tasks in a healthy undergraduate sample, with values ranging from 0.70 to 0.97 when examining all data. However, estimates were in part outside the confidence intervals of the original study, and ERN scores showed lower internal consistency than previously reported for a flanker task and higher internal consistency than previously reported for a Stroop task. Pe score internal consistency was similar across tasks when examining the average number of error trials. These findings underscore the importance of examining reliability in each study rather than relying on universal trial cutoffs. Overall, a flanker task may be better suited for studies of ERN due to the higher internal consistency of ERN scores when including data from all error trials. However, exclusively using a single task is discouraged because understanding the functional significance of ERN and Pe requires considering task-specific nuances and the varying contributions of cognitive processes, such as cognitive control or response inhibition.</p>","PeriodicalId":20913,"journal":{"name":"Psychophysiology","volume":"62 4","pages":"e70042"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychometric Reliability of ERN and Pe Across Flanker, Stroop, and Go/No-Go Tasks: A Direct and Conceptual Replication.\",\"authors\":\"Amanda Holbrook, Bohyun Park, Scott A Baldwin, Anja Riesel, Michael J Larson, Peter Clayson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/psyp.70042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The effectiveness of error-related negativity (ERN) in assessing individual differences hinges on its psychometric reliability. Despite evidence that the task used to record ERN moderates internal consistency, this moderation is rarely examined within the same sample, risking inaccurate generalizations of psychometrics. A direct and conceptual replication of Meyer et al. (2013, Psychophysiology) was conducted in 182 participants to assess the internal consistency of ERN from flanker, go/no-go, and Stroop tasks as a function of increasing trials. Analyses were extended to include error positivity (Pe) and difference scores (ΔERN, ΔPe), and generalizability theory and multilevel models were used to statistically compare internal consistency across tasks. Overall, data supported the internal consistency of results across three tasks in a healthy undergraduate sample, with values ranging from 0.70 to 0.97 when examining all data. However, estimates were in part outside the confidence intervals of the original study, and ERN scores showed lower internal consistency than previously reported for a flanker task and higher internal consistency than previously reported for a Stroop task. Pe score internal consistency was similar across tasks when examining the average number of error trials. These findings underscore the importance of examining reliability in each study rather than relying on universal trial cutoffs. Overall, a flanker task may be better suited for studies of ERN due to the higher internal consistency of ERN scores when including data from all error trials. However, exclusively using a single task is discouraged because understanding the functional significance of ERN and Pe requires considering task-specific nuances and the varying contributions of cognitive processes, such as cognitive control or response inhibition.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20913,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychophysiology\",\"volume\":\"62 4\",\"pages\":\"e70042\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.70042\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.70042","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

错误相关负性在评估个体差异中的有效性取决于其心理测量信度。尽管有证据表明,用于记录ERN的任务调节了内部一致性,但这种调节很少在同一样本中进行检查,有可能导致心理测量学的不准确概括。Meyer等人(2013,心理生理学)对182名参与者进行了直接和概念性的复制,以评估侧卫、去/不去和Stroop任务中ERN的内部一致性作为增加试验的函数。我们将分析扩展到包括误差正性(Pe)和差异得分(ΔERN, ΔPe),并使用概化理论和多层次模型对任务间的内部一致性进行统计比较。总体而言,数据支持健康大学生样本中三个任务结果的内部一致性,在检查所有数据时,值在0.70至0.97之间。然而,估计部分超出了原始研究的置信区间,并且ERN分数显示,侧卫任务的内部一致性比先前报道的要低,而Stroop任务的内部一致性比先前报道的要高。当检查错误试验的平均次数时,不同任务的Pe得分内部一致性相似。这些发现强调了在每项研究中检查可靠性的重要性,而不是依赖于普遍的试验截止点。总的来说,侧侧任务可能更适合研究神经网络,因为当包括所有错误试验的数据时,神经网络分数的内部一致性更高。然而,不鼓励只使用单一任务,因为理解ERN和Pe的功能意义需要考虑任务特定的细微差别和认知过程的不同贡献,如认知控制或反应抑制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Psychometric Reliability of ERN and Pe Across Flanker, Stroop, and Go/No-Go Tasks: A Direct and Conceptual Replication.

The effectiveness of error-related negativity (ERN) in assessing individual differences hinges on its psychometric reliability. Despite evidence that the task used to record ERN moderates internal consistency, this moderation is rarely examined within the same sample, risking inaccurate generalizations of psychometrics. A direct and conceptual replication of Meyer et al. (2013, Psychophysiology) was conducted in 182 participants to assess the internal consistency of ERN from flanker, go/no-go, and Stroop tasks as a function of increasing trials. Analyses were extended to include error positivity (Pe) and difference scores (ΔERN, ΔPe), and generalizability theory and multilevel models were used to statistically compare internal consistency across tasks. Overall, data supported the internal consistency of results across three tasks in a healthy undergraduate sample, with values ranging from 0.70 to 0.97 when examining all data. However, estimates were in part outside the confidence intervals of the original study, and ERN scores showed lower internal consistency than previously reported for a flanker task and higher internal consistency than previously reported for a Stroop task. Pe score internal consistency was similar across tasks when examining the average number of error trials. These findings underscore the importance of examining reliability in each study rather than relying on universal trial cutoffs. Overall, a flanker task may be better suited for studies of ERN due to the higher internal consistency of ERN scores when including data from all error trials. However, exclusively using a single task is discouraged because understanding the functional significance of ERN and Pe requires considering task-specific nuances and the varying contributions of cognitive processes, such as cognitive control or response inhibition.

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
Psychophysiology
Psychophysiology 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.10%
发文量
225
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Founded in 1964, Psychophysiology is the most established journal in the world specifically dedicated to the dissemination of psychophysiological science. The journal continues to play a key role in advancing human neuroscience in its many forms and methodologies (including central and peripheral measures), covering research on the interrelationships between the physiological and psychological aspects of brain and behavior. Typically, studies published in Psychophysiology include psychological independent variables and noninvasive physiological dependent variables (hemodynamic, optical, and electromagnetic brain imaging and/or peripheral measures such as respiratory sinus arrhythmia, electromyography, pupillography, and many others). The majority of studies published in the journal involve human participants, but work using animal models of such phenomena is occasionally published. Psychophysiology welcomes submissions on new theoretical, empirical, and methodological advances in: cognitive, affective, clinical and social neuroscience, psychopathology and psychiatry, health science and behavioral medicine, and biomedical engineering. The journal publishes theoretical papers, evaluative reviews of literature, empirical papers, and methodological papers, with submissions welcome from scientists in any fields mentioned above.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信