Gladwin Thomas Edward, Lindsen Job Pieter, de Jong Ritske
Department of Experimental and Work Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands.
Biol Psychol. 2006 Apr;72(1):15-34. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2005.05.005. Epub 2005 Oct 5.
The task-switching paradigm provides an opportunity to study whether oscillatory relations in neuronal activity are involved in switching between and maintaining task sets. The EEG of subjects performing an alternating runs [Rogers, R.D., Monsell, S., 1995. Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124, 207-231] task-switching task was analyzed using event-related potentials, the lateralized readiness potential, instantaneous amplitude and the phase-locking value [Lachaux, J.P., Rodriguez, E., Martinirie, J., Varela, F.J., 1999. Measuring phase synchrony in brain signals. Human Brain Mapping 8, 194-208]. The two tasks differed in the relevant modality (visual versus auditory) and the hand with which responses were to be given. The mixture model [de Jong, R., 2000. An intention driven account of residual switch costs. In: Monsell, S., Driver, J. (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVII: Cognitive Control. MIT Press, Cambridge] was used to assign pre-stimulus switch probabilities to switch trials based on reaction time; these probabilities were used to create a fast-slow distinction between trials on both switch and hold trials. Results showed both time- and time-frequency-domain effects, during the intervals preceding stimuli, of switching versus maintenance, response speed of the upcoming stimulus, and response hand. Of potential importance for task-switching theory were interactions between reaction time by switch-hold trial type that were found for a frontal slow negative potential and the lateralized readiness potential during the response-stimulus interval, indicating that effective preparation for switch trials involves different anticipatory activity than for hold trials. Theta-band oscillatory activity during the pre-stimulus period was found to be higher when subsequent reaction times were shorter, but this response speed effect did not interact with trial type. The response hand of the upcoming task was associated with lateralization of pre-stimulus mu- and beta-band amplitude and, specifically for switch trials, beta-band phase locking.
任务切换范式为研究神经元活动中的振荡关系是否参与任务集之间的切换和维持提供了契机。对执行交替运行任务([罗杰斯,R.D.,蒙塞尔,S.,1995年。简单认知任务之间可预测切换的代价。《实验心理学杂志:总论》124卷,第207 - 231页])的受试者的脑电图,使用事件相关电位、侧化准备电位、瞬时振幅和锁相值([拉肖克斯,J.P.,罗德里格斯,E.,马丁里耶,J.,瓦雷拉,F.J.,1999年。测量脑信号中的相位同步。《人类脑图谱》8卷,第194 - 208页])进行分析。这两项任务在相关模态(视觉与听觉)以及做出反应的手方面有所不同。混合模型([德容,R.,2000年。对残余切换代价的意图驱动解释。载于:蒙塞尔,S.,德赖弗,J.(编)。《注意力与表现XVII:认知控制》。麻省理工学院出版社,剑桥])用于根据反应时间为切换试验分配刺激前的切换概率;这些概率用于在切换试验和保持试验中对试验进行快速 - 慢速区分。结果显示,在刺激前的间隔期间,切换与维持、即将到来刺激的反应速度以及反应手在时域和时频域均有影响。对于任务切换理论具有潜在重要性的是,在反应 - 刺激间隔期间,对于额叶慢负电位和侧化准备电位,发现了切换 - 保持试验类型与反应时间之间的相互作用,这表明与保持试验相比,对切换试验的有效准备涉及不同的预期活动。当后续反应时间较短时,刺激前时期的θ波段振荡活动较高,但这种反应速度效应与试验类型没有相互作用。即将到来任务的反应手与刺激前μ和β波段振幅的侧化相关,特别是对于切换试验,与β波段锁相相关。