Cortical slow potential changes in man related to interstimulus intevval and to pre-trial prediction of interstimulus interval.
Cortical slow potential changes in man related to interstimulus intevval and to pre-trial prediction of interstimulus interval.
复制标题
人的皮质慢电位变化与刺激间隔和刺激间隔的预试验预测有关。
作者：
D. Mcadam;John R. Knott;Charles S. Rebert
进行了两项实验，以进一步探索被称为“偶然负变化”（CNV）的皮质慢电位变化与“预期”概念之间的关系。
在实验 I 中，向 24 名男性 S 提供点击对，点击间间隔为 800、1600 和 4800 毫秒（2 组，每组 10 次试验，在 S 之间平衡顺序），并指示在第二次点击后按一个键。按顺序进行的间隔试验方差分析显示间隔是唯一的显着因素：随着间隔的增加，CNV 较低，RT 较长。
在实验 II 中，8 名女性 Ss 接受了 60 次点击，每次 30 次，间隔为 1200 和 2400 毫秒，被指示按照实验 I 中的方式做出反应，并被要求对她们下次收到的间隔进行审前预测。 RT 的方差分析表明，当时间间隔与预测不同时，Ss 的响应速度较慢。通过受试者对 1200 毫秒点 CNV 幅度方差分析的接收进行预测，仅对于预测给出显着的 F，短期的平均幅度高于长期的平均幅度。当 Ss 接收长间隔时，对 1200 和 2400 毫秒点的 CNV 振幅应用类似的设计，通过间隔预测的相互作用产生了显着的测量点；在 1200 毫秒点，短预测之后的 CNV 高于长预测；在 2400 毫秒时，发现了相反的情况。
这些数据与文献中已有的数据相结合，表明“预期”与 CNV 之间的关系远非简单，认知和动机因素在确定 CNV 幅度方面发挥着重要作用。
Two experiments were performed to explore further the relationship between the cortical slow potential change known as the “contingent negative variation” (CNV) and the concept of “expectancy.”
In Experiment I, 24 male Ss were presented click pairs, with inter-click intervals of 800, 1600 and 4800 msec (2 blocks of 10 trials each, counterbalanced between Ss for order), and instructed to press a key after the second click. Interval by order by trials analysis of variance showed interval to be the only significant factor: CNVs were lower and RTs longer as interval increased.
In Experiment II, 8 female Ss given 60 pairs of clicks, 30 each with separations of 1200 and 2400 msec, were instructed to respond as in Experiment I, and were asked to make a pretrial prediction of the interval they would next receive. Analysis of variance of RTs showed that Ss responded slower when the interval was other than that predicted. Prediction by reception by subjects analysis of variance of CNV amplitude at the 1200 msec point gave a significant F only for prediction, mean amplitude for short being higher than for long. A similar design applied to CNV amplitudes at both the 1200 and 2400 msec points when Ss received the long interval yielded a significant measurement point by interval predicted interaction; at the 1200 msec point, short predictions were followed by higher CNVs than were long predictions; at 2400 msec, the opposite was found.
These data combine with those already in the literature to indicate that the relationship between “expectancy” and the CNV is far from simple, and that cognitive and motivational factors play a significant role in determining CNV amplitude.