9~10岁儿童和成人的一致性序列效应

删除或更新信息，请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01

赵鑫¹^,², 贾丽娜³, 周爱保¹^,²(

)

¹ 甘肃省行为与心理健康重点实验室
² 西北师范大学心理学院, 兰州 730070
³ 天津师范大学心理与行为研究院, 天津 300074

收稿日期:2019-02-12出版日期:2019-08-25发布日期:2019-06-24
通讯作者:周爱保E-mail:zhouab@nwnu.edu.cn

基金资助:* 国家自然科学基金资助(31560283)

Congruency sequence effects in 9~10-year-old children and young adults

ZHAO Xin¹^,², JIA Lina³, ZHOU Aibao¹^,²(

)

¹ Key Laboratory of Behavioral and Mental Health of Gansu Province
² School of Psychology, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou 730070, China
³ Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300074, China

Received:2019-02-12Online:2019-08-25Published:2019-06-24
Contact:ZHOU Aibao E-mail:zhouab@nwnu.edu.cn

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 一致性序列效应是指个体根据前一情境中的冲突信息, 灵活适应当前环境的能力。研究选取9~10岁的儿童和18~25岁的成人为被试, 采用色-词Stroop任务和Stroop与Flanker刺激混合的任务, 在控制重复启动的影响后, 考察一致性序列效应在不同任务中的年龄差异。结果发现, 在不同的任务中, 儿童和成人均表现出显著的一致性序列效应, 且一致性序列效应的大小不存在显著差异。研究结果表明, 冲突适应过程涉及更高级的加工过程, 9~10岁的儿童已具备类似成人的、更一般化的冲突适应能力。

图/表 4

图1实验流程图(左：任务1; 右：任务2)

图2成人和儿童在前一试次(一致vs.不一致)和当前试次(一致vs.不一致)的平均反应时和标准误(左); 平均正确率和标准误(右)

图2成人和儿童在前一试次(一致vs.不一致)和当前试次(一致vs.不一致)的平均反应时和标准误(左); 平均正确率和标准误(右)

表1任务1和任务2的统计分析结果

任务和因变量	因素	F	p	η_p2
任务1 反应时(ms)	年龄组	35.28	<0.001^***	0.35
	前一试次一致性	0.07	0.79	0.00
	当前试次一致性	64.05	<0.001^***	0.50
	前一试次×当前试次	103.21	<0.001^***	0.61
	年龄组×前一试次	0.02	89	0.00
	年龄组×当前试次	0.10	0.75	0.00
	年龄组×前一试次×当前试次	3.02	0.09	0.04
任务1 正确率	年龄组	34.44	<0.001^***	0.35
	前一试次一致性	26.06	<0.001^***	0.29
	当前试次一致性	26.20	<0.001^***	0.29
	前一试次×当前试次	50.37	<0.001^***	0.44
	年龄组×前一试次	5.24	0.03^*	0.08
	年龄组×当前试次	0.50	0.48	0.01
	年龄组×前一试次×当前试次	0.09	0.77	0.00
任务2 反应时(ms)	年龄组	25.71	<0.001^***	0.29
	任务转换(TT)	22.04	<0.001^***	0.26
	前一试次一致性	15.17	<0.001^***	0.19
	当前试次一致性	189.39	<0.001^***	0.75
	年龄组×TT	0.46	0.50	0.01
	年龄组×前一试次	6.51	0.01^*	0.09
	年龄组×当前试次	1.67	0.20	0.03
	TT×前一试次	6.50	0.01^*	0.09
	TT×当前试次	64.66	<0.001^***	0.50
	前一试次×当前试次	25.58	<0.001^***	0.29
	年龄组×TT×前一试次	0.02	0.89	0.00
	年龄组×TT×当前试次	9.12	0.004^**	0.13
	年龄组×前一试次×当前试次	0.01	0.91	0.00
	TT×前一试次×当前试次	1.38	0.25	0.02
	年龄组×TT×前一试次×当前试次	2.11	0.15	0.03
任务2 正确率	年龄组	50.14	<0.001+	0.44
	任务转换(TT)	77.27	<0.001^***	0.55
	前一试次一致性	0.03	0.87	0.00
	当前试次一致性	60.54	<0.001^***	0.49
	TT×前一试次	0.77	0.38	0.01
	TT×当前试次	0.18	0.68	0.00
	TT×前一试次×当前试次	0.28	0.60	0.00
	前一试次×当前试次	13.44	0.001^**	0.18
	年龄组×前一试次	0.01	0.92	0.00
	年龄组×当前试次	13.89	<0.001^***	0.18
	年龄组×TT	18.62	<0.001^***	0.23
	年龄组×TT×前一试次	1.26	0.27	0.02
	年龄组×TT×当前试次	0.18	0.68	0.00
	年龄组×前一试次×当前试次	0.99	0.32	0.02
	年龄组×TT×前一试次×当前试次	0.21	0.65	0.00

表1任务1和任务2的统计分析结果

任务和因变量	因素	F	p	η_p2
任务1 反应时(ms)	年龄组	35.28	<0.001^***	0.35
	前一试次一致性	0.07	0.79	0.00
	当前试次一致性	64.05	<0.001^***	0.50
	前一试次×当前试次	103.21	<0.001^***	0.61
	年龄组×前一试次	0.02	89	0.00
	年龄组×当前试次	0.10	0.75	0.00
	年龄组×前一试次×当前试次	3.02	0.09	0.04
任务1 正确率	年龄组	34.44	<0.001^***	0.35
	前一试次一致性	26.06	<0.001^***	0.29
	当前试次一致性	26.20	<0.001^***	0.29
	前一试次×当前试次	50.37	<0.001^***	0.44
	年龄组×前一试次	5.24	0.03^*	0.08
	年龄组×当前试次	0.50	0.48	0.01
	年龄组×前一试次×当前试次	0.09	0.77	0.00
任务2 反应时(ms)	年龄组	25.71	<0.001^***	0.29
	任务转换(TT)	22.04	<0.001^***	0.26
	前一试次一致性	15.17	<0.001^***	0.19
	当前试次一致性	189.39	<0.001^***	0.75
	年龄组×TT	0.46	0.50	0.01
	年龄组×前一试次	6.51	0.01^*	0.09
	年龄组×当前试次	1.67	0.20	0.03
	TT×前一试次	6.50	0.01^*	0.09
	TT×当前试次	64.66	<0.001^***	0.50
	前一试次×当前试次	25.58	<0.001^***	0.29
	年龄组×TT×前一试次	0.02	0.89	0.00
	年龄组×TT×当前试次	9.12	0.004^**	0.13
	年龄组×前一试次×当前试次	0.01	0.91	0.00
	TT×前一试次×当前试次	1.38	0.25	0.02
	年龄组×TT×前一试次×当前试次	2.11	0.15	0.03
任务2 正确率	年龄组	50.14	<0.001+	0.44
	任务转换(TT)	77.27	<0.001^***	0.55
	前一试次一致性	0.03	0.87	0.00
	当前试次一致性	60.54	<0.001^***	0.49
	TT×前一试次	0.77	0.38	0.01
	TT×当前试次	0.18	0.68	0.00
	TT×前一试次×当前试次	0.28	0.60	0.00
	前一试次×当前试次	13.44	0.001^**	0.18
	年龄组×前一试次	0.01	0.92	0.00
	年龄组×当前试次	13.89	<0.001^***	0.18
	年龄组×TT	18.62	<0.001^***	0.23
	年龄组×TT×前一试次	1.26	0.27	0.02
	年龄组×TT×当前试次	0.18	0.68	0.00
	年龄组×前一试次×当前试次	0.99	0.32	0.02
	年龄组×TT×前一试次×当前试次	0.21	0.65	0.00

图3Stroop→Flanker转换中, 不同年龄组在前一试次(一致vs.不一致)和当前试次(一致vs.不一致)的平均反应时和标准误(左上); 平均正确率和标准误(左下); Flanker→Stroop转换中, 不同年龄组在前一试次(一致vs.不一致)和当前试次(一致vs.不一致)的平均反应时和标准误(右上); 平均正确率和标准误(右下)

参考文献 40

[1]	Adleman N. E., Menon V., Blasey C. M., White C. D., Warsofsky I. S., Glover G. H., & Reiss A. L . ( 2002). A Developmental fMRI Study of the Stroop Color-Word Task. NeuroImage, 16(1), 61-75.
[2]	Ambrosi S., Lemaire P., & Blaye A . ( 2016). Do young children modulate their cognitive control? Sequential congruency effects across three conflict tasks in 5-to-6 year olds. Experimental Psychology , 63(2), 117-126.
[3]	Benikos N., Johnstone S. J., & Roodenrys S. J . ( 2013). Varying task difficulty in the Go/Nogo task: The effects of inhibitory control, arousal, and perceived effort on ERP components. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 87(3), 262-272.
[4]	Botvinick M. M., Braver T. S., Barch D. M., Carter C. S., & Cohen J. D . ( 2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624-652.
[5]	Braem S., Abrahamse E. L., Duthoo W., & Notebaert W . ( 2014). What determines the specificity of conflict adaptation? A review, critical analysis and proposed synthesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1134.
[6]	Brocki K.C., & Bohlin G. , ( 2004). Executive functions in children aged 6 to 13: A dimensional and developmental study. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26(2), 571-593.
[7]	Cao J., Wang S. H., Ren Y. L., Zhang Y. L., Cai J., Tu W. J., … Xia Y . ( 2013). Interference control in 6-11 year-old children with and without ADHD: Behavioral and ERP study. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience, 31(5), 342-349.
[8]	Cragg L., . ( 2016). The development of stimulus and response interference control in midchildhood. Developmental Psychology, 52(2), 242-252.
[9]	Diamond A., . ( 2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135-168.
[10]	Duthoo W., Abrahamse E. L., Braem S., Boehler C. N., & Notebaert W . ( 2014 b). The heterogeneous world of congruency sequence effects: An update. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1001.
[11]	Egner T., & Hirsch J. , ( 2005). The neural correlates and functional integration of cognitive control in a Stroop task. NeuroImage, 24(2), 539-547.
[12]	Erb C. D., Moher J., Song J.-H., & Sobel D. M . ( 2018). Reach tracking reveals dissociable processes underlying inhibitory control in 5- to 10-year-olds and adults. Developmental Science, 21:e12523.
[13]	Eriksen A., &Eriksen C.W. . ( 1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 64(1), 143-149.
[14]	Freitas A. L., Bahar M., Yang S., & Banai R . ( 2007). Contextual adjustments in cognitive control across tasks. Psychological Science 18(12), 1040-1043.
[15]	Funes M. J., Lupiáñez J., & Humphreys G . ( 2010). Analyzing the generality of conflict adaptation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(1), 147-161.
[16]	Goldfarb L., Aisenberg D., & Henik A . ( 2011). Think the thought, walk the walk – Social priming reduces the Stroop effect. Cognition, 118(2), 193-200.
[17]	Gratton G., Coles M. G. H., & Donchin E . ( 1992). Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480-506.
[18]	Hommel B., Proctor R. W., & Vu K-P . ( 2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68(1), 1-17.
[19]	Iani C., Stella G., & Rubichi S . ( 2014). Response inhibition and adaptations to response conflict in 6- to 8-year-old children: Evidence from the Simon effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76(4), 1234-1241.
[20]	Jiménez, L., & Méndez , A. ( 2013). It is not what you expect: dissociating conflict adaptation from expectancies in a stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(1), 271-284.
[21]	Kerns, J. G . ( 2006). Anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex activity in an fMRI study of trial-to-trial adjustments on the simon task. Neuroimage, 33(1), 399-405.
[22]	Kray J., Karbach J., & Blaye A . ( 2012). The influence of stimulus-set size on developmental changes in cognitive control and conflict adaptation. Acta Psychologica, 140(2), 119-128.
[23]	Lamers, M. J. M., & Roelofs , A. ( 2011). Attentional control adjustments in Eriksen and Stroop task performance can be independent of response conflict. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(6), 1056-1081.
[24]	Larson M. J., Clawson A., Clayson P. E., & South M . ( 2012). Cognitive control and conflict adaptation similarities in children and adults. Developmental Neuropsychology 37(4), 343-357.
[25]	Larson M. J., Kaufman D. A. S., & Perlstein W. M . ( 2009). Neural time course of conflict adaptation effects on the stroop task. Neuropsychologia, 47(3), 663-670.
[26]	Luna B., Garver K. E., Urban T. A., Lazar N. A., & Sweeney J. A . ( 2004). Maturation of cognitive processes from late childhood to adulthood. Child Development, 75(5), 1357-1372.
[27]	Luna B, & Sweeney J.A . ( 2004). The emergence of collaborative brain function: fMRI studies of the development of response inhibition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1021(1), 296-309.
[28]	Lustig C., Hasher L., & Tonev S. T . ( 2006). Distraction as a determinant of processing speed. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(4), 619-625.
[29]	MacLeod C.M . ( 1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163-203.
[30]	Mayr U., Awh E., & Laurey P . ( 2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450-452.
[31]	Miyake A., Friedman N. P., Emerson M. J., Witzki A. H., Howerter A., & Wager T. D . ( 2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49-100.
[32]	Nieuwenhuis S., Stins J. F., Posthuma D., Polderman T. J. C., Boomsma D. I., & de Geus E. J. ., ( 2006). Accounting for sequential trial effects in the flanker task: Conflict adaptation or associative priming? Memory & Cognition, 34(6), 1260-1272.
[33]	Rueda M. R., Fan J., McCandliss B. D., Halparin J. D., Gruber D. B., Lercari L. P., & Posner M. I . ( 2004). Development of attentional networks in childhood. Neuropsychologia, 42(8), 1029-1040.
[34]	Stins J. F., Polderman J. C. T., Boomsma D. I., & de Geus E. J. C. ., ( 2007). Conditional accuracy in response interference tasks: evidence from the Eriksen flanker task and the spatial conflict task. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 409-417.
[35]	Titz C., & Karbach J. , ( 2014). Working memory and executive functions: Effects of training on academic achievement. Psychological Research, 78(6), 852-868.
[36]	Waxer M., & Morton J.B. . ( 2011). The development of future-oriented control: An electrophysiological investigation. NeuroImage, 56(3), 1648-1654.
[37]	Wilk H. A., Ezekiel F., & Morton J. B . ( 2012). Brain regions associated with moment-to-moment adjustments in control and stable task-set maintenance. NeuroImage, 59(2), 1960-1967.
[38]	Wilk H.A., & Morton J.B . ( 2012). Developmental changes in patterns of brain activity associated with moment-to- moment adjustments in control. NeuroImage, 63(1), 475-484.
[39]	Zhao X., Chen L., & Maes J. H. R . ( 2018). Training and transfer effects of response inhibition training in children and adults. Developmental Science, 21, e12511.
[40]	Zhao X., & Jia L. , ( 2018). Training and transfer effects of interference control training in children and young adults. Psychological Research, in press.