Changes of Proactive Cognitive Control According to Inter-Stimulus Intervals

갈등적응효과는 스트룹 과제나 수반자극 과제 등에서 이전 시행 조건에 따라 현재 시행의 간섭의 크기가 달라지는 현상을 일컫는데, 인지적 통제 능력의 측정치로 사용되고 있다. 갈등적응효과의 발생 기제에 대한 설명은 매우 다양한데, 하향처리적 통제의 관점을 지닌 갈등 감시 이론과 기대에 기반한 설명이 있다. 두 이론은 각각 반응적 통제와 능동적 통제에 관련되어 있으며 갈등적응효과의 시간적 특성에 대해 다른 설명을 하고 있다. 본 연구는 능동적 통제의 관점에서 갈등적응효과에 시간적 조작이 미치는 영향을 알아보고자 상대적으로 높은 난이도의 스트룹 과제를 사용하였다. 실험 1과 2는 다양한 길이의 자극 간 시간 간격을 무선적으로 제시하여 과제를 실시하였다. 그 결과, 처리 시간이 충분할 때 능동적 통제로 인한 갈등적응효과가 발생할 수 있음을 확인하였다. 실험 3에서는 자극 출현에 대한 예측이 용이하도록 자극 간 시간 간격을 고정시켜 제시하였으며 기대효과로 인해 더 강화된 능동적 통제가 나타난 것을 확인하였다. 본 연구는 과제의 특성에 따라 능동적 통제로 인해 갈등적응효과가 발생할 수 있으며 능동적 통제는 처리시간이 충분하고 자극 출현에 대한 예측이 쉬운 상황에서 더 효율적으로 작동할 수 있음을 시사한다.

keywords: cognitive control, proactive control, conflict adaptation, inter-stimulus interval, 인지적 통제, 능동적 통제, 갈등적응, 자극 간 간격

Abstract

In selective attention tasks such as the Stroop or flanker tasks, performance on the current trial is modulated by trial sequence. This is referred to as the conflict adaptation (CA) effect, which is used for a measurement of cognitive control. Various theoretical accounts have been proposed to explain the CA effect in a top-down or bottom-up manner. In a top-down attentional modulation view, the conflict monitoring theory suggests reactive control whereas a expectation-based account proposes proactive control. These have different assumption in the time-course of the CA effect. In the present study, we used a relatively difficult version of the Stroop task to investigate whether the CA effect is influenced by temporal operation in the light of proactive control. In the Experiment 1 and 2, diverse inter-stimulus intervals were randomly presented in the tasks. The result showed that the CA effect could occur proactively when the processing time was sufficient. In the Experiment 3, we manipulated the inter-stimulus intervals in the block design to facilitate participants' anticipation of the stimulus presentation time. The results demonstrated that proactive control could be enhanced due to the expectation effect. Our findings suggest that the CA effect could occur through proactive control according to the nature of tasks. In addition, proactive control appears to operate more efficiently when processing time is enough and prediction of the stimulus onset is easy.

keywords: cognitive control, proactive control, conflict adaptation, inter-stimulus interval, 인지적 통제, 능동적 통제, 갈등적응, 자극 간 간격

참고문헌

Blais, C., & Verguts, T. (2012). Increasing set size breaks down sequential congruency: Evidence for an associative locus of cognitive control. Acta Psychologica, 141, 133-139.

Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624-652.

Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: an update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 539-546.

Botvinick, M. M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature, 402, 179- 181.

Braem, S., Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2011). Conflict Adaptation by Means of Associative Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology- Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1662- 1666.

Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 106-113.

Clementz, B. A., Barber, S. K., & Dzau, J. R. (2002). Knowledge of stimulus repetition affects the magnitude and spatial distribution of low-frequency event-related brain potentials. Audiology and Neuro-Otology, 7, 303-314.

De Houwer, J. A. N. (2003). On the role of stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility in the Stroop effect. Memory & Cognition, 31, 353-359.

Duthoo, W., Abrahamse, E. L., Braem, S., & Notebaert, W. (2014). Going, going, gone? Proactive control prevents the congruency sequence effect from rapid decay. Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung, 78, 483-493.

10.

Duthoo, W., Wuhr, P., & Notebaert, W. (2013). The hot-hand fallacy in cognitive control: Repetition expectancy modulates the congruency sequence effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 798-805.

11.

Egner, T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 380-390.

12.

Egner, T., Ely, S., & Grinband, J. (2010). Going, going, gone: characterizing the time-course of congruency sequence effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 1. 1-8.

13.

Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). The neural correlates and functional integration of cognitive control in a Stroop task. Neuroimage, 24, 539-547.

14.

Galer, S., Schmitz, R., Leproult, R., De Tiege, X., Van Bogaert, P., & Peigneux, P. (2014). Response-Stimulus Interval Duration Modulates Interference Effects in the Stroop Task. Psychologica Belgica, 54, 97-110.

15.

Gholson, B., & Hohle, R. H. (1968). Choice reaction times to hues printed in conflicting hue names and nonsense words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 413-418.

16.

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, 480-506.

17.

Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung, 68, 1-17.

18.

Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W., Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior Cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303, 1023-1026.

19.

Kim, C., Chung, C., & Kim, J. (2010). Multiple cognitive control mechanisms associated with the nature of conflict. Neuroscience Letters, 476, 156-160.

20.

Kim, C., Johnson, N. F., & Gold, B. T. (2014). Conflict adaptation in prefrontal cortex: Now you see it, now you don't. Cortex, 50, 76-85.

21.

Kim, C., Kroger, J. K., & Kim, J. (2011). A Functional Dissociation of Conflict Processing Within Anterior Cingulate Cortex. Human Brain Mapping, 32, 304-312.

22.

Larson, M. J., Kaufman, D. A. S., & Perlstein, W. M. (2009). Neural time course of conflict adaptation effects on the Stroop task. Neuropsychologia, 47, 663-670.

23.

Locke, H. S., & Braver, T. S. (2008). Motivational influences on cognitive control: Behavior, brain activation, and individual differences. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 99-112.

24.

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.

25.

Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450-452.

26.

McClain, L. (1983). Effects of response type and set size on Stroop color-word performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 56, 735-743.

27.

Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167-202.

28.

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, 1260-1272.

29.

Notebaert, W., Gevers, W., Verbruggen, F., & Liefooghe, B. (2006). Top-down and bottom- up sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 112-117.

30.

Notebaert, W., Soetens, E., & Melis, A. (2001). Sequential analysis of a Simon task - evidence for an attention-shift account. Psychological Research, 65, 170-184.

31.

Ray, C. (1974). The manipulation of color response times in a color-word interference task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 101-104.

32.

Shin, G., & Kim, C. (2015). Neural correlates of cognitive style and flexible cognitive control. Neuroimage, 113, 78-85.

33.

Speer, N. K., Jacoby, L. L., & Braver, T. S. (2003). Strategy-dependent changes in memory: Effects on behavior and brain activity. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 155-167.

34.

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643.

35.

Sturmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schroter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology- Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345- 1363.

36.

van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Wylie, S. A. (2012). Once bitten, twice shy: on the transient nature of congruency sequence effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. 264.

37.

van Veen, V., & Carter, C. S. (2005). Separating semantic conflict and response conflict in the Stroop task: a functional MRI study. NeuroImage, 27, 497-504.

38.

Wendt, M., & Kiesel, A. (2011). Conflict adaptation in time: Foreperiods as contextual cues for attentional adjustment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 910-916.

39.

Williams, E. (1977). The effects of amount of information in the Stroop color word test. Perception & Psychophysics, 22, 463-470.

40.

Wodka, E. L., Simmonds, D. J., Mahone, E. M., & Mostofsky, S. H. (2009). Moderate variability in stimulus presentation improves motor response control. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31, 483-488.

41.

Wuhr, P., & Ansorge, U. (2005). Exploring trial-by-trial modulations of the Simon effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section a-Human Experimental Psychology, 58, 705-731.

바로가기메뉴

논문 상세

Vol.28 No.1

자극 간 간격에 따른 능동적 통제의 변화

Changes of Proactive Cognitive Control According to Inter-Stimulus Intervals

초록

Abstract

참고문헌

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물