Department of Psychology and Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer Sheva, Israel.
Department of Psychology and Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer Sheva, Israel ; Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer Sheva, Israel.
Front Psychol. 2014 Oct 6;5:1108. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01108. eCollection 2014.
Learning takes time, namely, one needs to be exposed to contingency relations between stimulus dimensions in order to learn, whereas intentional control can be recruited through task demands. Therefore showing that control can be recruited as a function of experimental instructions alone, that is, adapting the processing according to the instructions before the exposure to the task, can be taken as evidence for existence of control recruitment in the absence of learning. This was done by manipulating the information given at the outset of the experiment. In the first experiment, we manipulated list-level congruency proportion. Half of the participants were informed that most of the stimuli would be congruent, whereas the other half were informed that most of the stimuli would be incongruent. This held true for the stimuli in the second part of each experiment. In the first part, however, the proportion of the two stimulus types was equal. A proportion congruent (PC) effect was found in both parts of the experiment, but it was larger in the second part. In our second experiment, we manipulated the proportion of the stimuli within participants by applying an item-specific design. This was done by presenting some color words most often in their congruent color, and other color words in incongruent colors. Participants were informed about the exact word-color pairings in advance. Similar to Experiment 1, this held true only for the second experimental part. In contrast to our first experiment, informing participants in advance did not result in an item-specific proportion effect, which was observed only in the second part. Thus our results support the hypothesis that instructions may be enough to trigger list-level control, yet learning does contribute to the PC effect under such conditions. The item-level proportion effect is apparently caused by learning or at least it is moderated by it.
学习需要时间,也就是说,人们需要接触到刺激维度之间的偶然关系才能学习,而意图控制可以通过任务要求来招募。因此,仅通过实验指令就可以招募到控制,也就是说,在接触任务之前根据指令来调整处理过程,可以作为在没有学习的情况下存在控制招募的证据。这是通过操纵实验开始时提供的信息来实现的。在第一个实验中,我们操纵了列表级别的一致性比例。一半的参与者被告知大多数刺激将是一致的,而另一半则被告知大多数刺激将是不一致的。这适用于每个实验的第二部分的刺激。然而,在第一部分,两种刺激类型的比例是相等的。在实验的两部分都发现了比例一致性(PC)效应,但第二部分的效应更大。在我们的第二个实验中,我们通过应用特定于项目的设计来操纵参与者内部的刺激比例。这是通过以其一致的颜色最常呈现某些颜色词,并以不一致的颜色呈现其他颜色词来实现的。参与者事先被告知了确切的单词-颜色配对。与实验 1 类似,这仅适用于实验的第二部分。与我们的第一个实验不同,提前告知参与者并没有导致特定于项目的比例效应,只有在第二部分才能观察到这种效应。因此,我们的结果支持这样的假设,即指令可能足以触发列表级别的控制,但在这种情况下,学习确实有助于 PC 效应。项目级别的比例效应显然是由学习引起的,或者至少受到学习的调节。