P300-based Stroop study with low probability and target Stroop oddballs: The evidence still favors the response selection hypothesis
P300-based Stroop study with low probability and target Stroop oddballs: The evidence still favors the response selection hypothesis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.05.010
复制
发表时间：
2006-06-01
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Skogsberg, KR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rosenfeld, JP;Skogsberg, KR
本文讨论了Stroop效应中认知加工的作用轨迹问题。它使用P300潜伏期来评估刺激处理效果，但是，第一次，在Stroop刺激是罕见的和目标刺激的条件下。该研究还涉及证明，由于与语音相关的伪影污染了EEG，言语反应期间的明显P300实际上是不可解释的。介绍了三项研究。在研究1中，有3个区块，每个区块包含3种类型的罕见Stroop刺激（p= 0.15），一致，中性和不一致。还有3种响应模式：按钮按下（按钮），大声说话（口头）和自言自语（沉默）。使用了三个会话，每个会话用于不同的响应风格。唯一的任务是在每次试验中命名颜色。在两个非言语块中，反应时（RT）因刺激类型而异;一致的<中性< incongruent. P300 latency was the same across blocks in these nonverbal conditions in which one saw the classic Pz >Cz > Fz分布。在VERBAL块中，更大的、受语音伪影污染的“P300”确实表明了Stroop效应，特别是在Fz和Cz，其中“P300”大于Pz。在研究2中，有2种反应模式，言语和沉默，只有两种罕见的Stroop刺激;中性和不一致，每块I。在每一个区块中，一个单词颜色组合是一个指定的目标，需要一个独特的反应。受试者要说出颜色，然后用是或否对目标或非目标进行分类。同样，RT的不一致性大于RT的中性，没有平行的影响P300潜伏期。同样，在VERBAL条件下，嘴侧ERP出现人为现象。研究3是第二项研究的复制，除了动机的主题，与心理库新兵，使用。潜伏期与RT的相关性仍未获得。因此，使用经典的P300诱发前因-罕见和目标（Stroop）刺激-本研究支持的观点，即Stroop干扰的位点是在反应处理。(c)2005 Elsevier B. V.保留所有权利。
This paper addresses the issue of the locus of action in cognitive processing during Stroop effects. It uses the P300 latency to assess stimulus processing effects, but, for the first time, under conditions in which Stroop stimuli are rare and target stimuli. The study was also concerned with demonstrating that apparent P300s during verbal responding are in fact uninterpretable due to contamination of EEG by speech-related artifact. Three studies were presented. In Study 1, there were 3 blocks, each containing 1 of 3 types of rare Stroop stimuli (p=.15), congruent, neutral, and incongruent. There were also 3 response modes: button press (BUTTON), speaking aloud (VERBAL), and speaking to self (SILENT). Three sessions were used, each for a different response style. The only task was to name the color on each trial. In the 2 non-verbal blocks, Reaction Time (RT) varied by stimulus type; congruent < neutral < incongruent. P300 latency was the same across blocks in these nonverbal conditions in which one saw the classic Pz > Cz > Fz distribution. The much larger, speech artifact-contaminated "P300s" in the VERBAL blocks did suggest a Stroop effect, especially at Fz and Cz, where "P300s" were larger than at Pz. In Study 2, there were 2 response modes, VERBAL and SILENT, and only two rare Stroop stimuli; neutral and incongruent, I per block. In each of these blocks, one word-color combination was a designated target requiring a unique response. The subject was to name the color followed by a yes or no to categorize the target or non-target. Again the RT for incongruents was greater than RT for neutrals, without a parallel effect in P300 latency. Again, the rostral ERPs appeared artifactual in the VERBAL condition. Study 3 was a replication of the second study, except that motivated subjects, versus Psychology pool recruits, were used. The latency-RT correlation still failed to obtain. Thus, using classic P300-eliciting antecedents - rare and target (Stroop) stimuli-this study supports the view that the locus of Stroop interference is in response processing. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.