Different Measures of Auditory and Visual Stroop Interference and Their Relationship to Speech Intelligibility in Noise.
Different Measures of Auditory and Visual Stroop Interference and Their Relationship to Speech Intelligibility in Noise.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00230
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
Heinrich A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Knight S;Heinrich A
抑制-抑制与目标无关的信息的能力-被认为是在许多情况下，包括噪声中的语音（SiN）知觉的一种重要的认知技能。测量抑制的一种方法是通过Stroop任务，其中一个刺激维度必须被命名，而第二个更有利的维度被忽略。被忽略的维度可能与目标维度相关或不相关，抑制测量-Stroop干扰（SI）-被计算为相关和不相关条件之间的反应时间差。SiN感知和抑制都被认为会随着年龄的增长而恶化，但试图将这两种能力与年龄相关的下降联系起来却产生了不同的结果。我们认为，研究之间的不一致可能是由于使用Stroop任务的方法学问题。首先，SI和SiN感知之间的关系可能会有所不同，这取决于Stroop任务的方式;第二，传统的SI措施可能无法解释广义放缓或感觉下降，因此可能无法提供一个纯粹的干扰措施。我们在一组50名老年人中调查了这两种说法，他们执行了两项Stroop任务（视觉和听觉）和两项SiN感知任务。对于每个Stroop任务，我们使用传统的差异测量和旨在解决其各种问题的方法计算干扰分数，并比较这些不同的评分方法预测SiN性能的能力，单独和与听力灵敏度相结合。两种Stroop任务的结果不相关，并且与SiN知觉有不同的关系。改变评分方法改变了Stroop评分和SiN感知之间的预测关系的性质，这也受到听力灵敏度的影响。这些发现提出了问题，在何种程度上不同的Stroop任务和/或评分方法测量相同方面的认知。他们还强调了在分析认知变量时考虑其他变量（如听力）的重要性。
Inhibition—the ability to suppress goal-irrelevant information—is thought to be an important cognitive skill in many situations, including speech-in-noise (SiN) perception. One way to measure inhibition is by means of Stroop tasks, in which one stimulus dimension must be named while a second, more prepotent dimension is ignored. The to-be-ignored dimension may be relevant or irrelevant to the target dimension, and the inhibition measure—Stroop interference (SI)—is calculated as the reaction time difference between the relevant and irrelevant conditions. Both SiN perception and inhibition are suggested to worsen with age, yet attempts to connect age-related declines in these two abilities have produced mixed results. We suggest that the inconsistencies between studies may be due to methodological issues surrounding the use of Stroop tasks. First, the relationship between SI and SiN perception may differ depending on the modality of the Stroop task; second, the traditional SI measure may not account for generalized slowing or sensory declines, and thus may not provide a pure interference measure. We investigated both claims in a group of 50 older adults, who performed two Stroop tasks (visual and auditory) and two SiN perception tasks. For each Stroop task, we calculated interference scores using both the traditional difference measure and methods designed to address its various problems, and compared the ability of these different scoring methods to predict SiN performance, alone and in combination with hearing sensitivity. Results from the two Stroop tasks were uncorrelated and had different relationships to SiN perception. Changing the scoring method altered the nature of the predictive relationship between Stroop scores and SiN perception, which was additionally influenced by hearing sensitivity. These findings raise questions about the extent to which different Stroop tasks and/or scoring methods measure the same aspect of cognition. They also highlight the importance of considering additional variables such as hearing ability when analyzing cognitive variables.