Isolation of specific interference processing in the Stroop task: PET activation studies
Isolation of specific interference processing in the Stroop task: PET activation studies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1006/nimg.1997.0285
复制
发表时间：
1997-08-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Koeppe, RA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Taylor, SF;Kornblum, S;Koeppe, RA
Stroop任务要求被试说出与被命名颜色词不同的字母的颜色，这为选择性注意的研究提供了一个重要的实验范式。脑血流激活研究并不总是表现出一致的激活模式;不一致的结果可能反映了非特异性反应，如唤醒或预期，而不是特定于Stroop干扰处理的大脑网络。为了确定区域一贯牵连Stroop干扰处理，我们进行了两个实验与Stroop干扰范式和对比词汇和非词汇控制条件。在我们的第一个实验中，标准Stroop刺激，例如，以绿色字体显示的“RED”字，与非颜色字字体的颜色命名和假字体的颜色命名进行对比。在我们的第二个实验中，我们比较了Stroop刺激与彩色符号和控制条件，旨在引起非特异性干扰禁忌词显示在彩色字体。在两个实验中，只有两个脑区显示出一致的CBF变化。激活在左额下回反映处理更具体的Stroop任务，而失活在右上级颞回发生的Stroop和禁忌的条件下，与更多的非特异性处理。前扣带皮层的激活只发生在一个实验中的一个比较中，可能并不反映克服Stroop干扰的核心功能。(C)北京：科学出版社.
The Stroop task, in which subjects must name the color of letters that spell color words different than the color-to-be-named, provides an important experimental paradigm for the study of selective attention. Cerebral blood flow activation studies have not always demonstrated consistent activation patterns; inconsistent results may reflect nonspecific responses, such as arousal or anticipation, rather than cerebral networks specific to Stroop interference processing. In order to identify regions consistently implicated in Stroop interference processing, we undertook two experiments with a Stroop interference paradigm and contrasting lexical and nonlexical control conditions. In our first experiment, standard Stroop stimuli, e.g., the word ''RED'' displayed in a green font, were contrasted with color naming of the font of noncolor words and color naming of a false font. In our second experiment, we compared Stroop stimuli with colored symbols and a control condition designed to elicit nonspecific interference-taboo words displayed in color fonts. Only two brain regions showed a consistent CBF change in both experiments. Activation in the left inferior frontal gyrus reflected processing more specific to the Stroop task, while deactivation in the right superior temporal gyrus occurred for the Stroop and the taboo conditions, consistent with more nonspecific processing. Activation in the anterior cingulate cortex occurred in only one comparison in one experiment and may not reflect functions central to overcoming Stroop interference. (C) 1997 Academic Press.