Song Yongning, Hakoda Yuji
Key Laboratory of Brain Functional Genomics, Ministry of Education, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Brain Functional Genomics, School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, China.
Faculty of Human Development and Education, Kyoto Women's University, Japan.
Behav Brain Res. 2015 Sep 1;290:187-96. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2015.04.047. Epub 2015 May 5.
Many previous behavioral inhibition studies have employed the classic Stroop and reverse-Stroop paradigm. Although an experimental dissociation has been demonstrated between Stroop interference (SI) and reverse-Stroop interference (RI), the mechanisms that underlie these phenomena remain unclear. In this study, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to compare the functional mechanisms of SI and RI. We identified the brain regions activated by the Stroop word-color matching task using four tests: the Stroop control test (Test 1), Stroop test (Test 2), reverse-Stroop control test (Test 3), and reverse-Stroop test (Test 4). Neuroimaging results revealed that SI elicited activation in the bilateral middle frontal gyrus (BA9). In contrast, a number of other regions, including the bilateral middle frontal gyrus (BA 9 and BA10), medial frontal gyrus (BA 8), and cingulate gyrus (BA6 and BA 32) exhibited significant activation during RI. Our results indicate that there is a dissociation between the types of interference and brain activation. These findings suggest that SI and RI interference can be attributable to different neural mechanisms. It also suggests that the prefrontal cortex and the cingulate cortex are differentially sensitive to various types of interference, and that the reverse-Stroop task may be more useful than the Stroop task for evaluating interference control in psychiatric patients with frontal dysfunction.
许多先前的行为抑制研究都采用了经典的斯特鲁普和反向斯特鲁普范式。尽管已经证明了斯特鲁普干扰（SI）和反向斯特鲁普干扰（RI）之间存在实验性分离，但这些现象背后的机制仍不清楚。在本研究中，我们使用功能磁共振成像（fMRI）来比较SI和RI的功能机制。我们通过四项测试确定了由斯特鲁普词色匹配任务激活的脑区：斯特鲁普对照测试（测试1）、斯特鲁普测试（测试2）、反向斯特鲁普对照测试（测试3）和反向斯特鲁普测试（测试4）。神经影像学结果显示，SI引起双侧额中回（BA9）激活。相比之下，包括双侧额中回（BA9和BA10）、额内侧回（BA8）和扣带回（BA6和BA32）在内的许多其他区域在RI期间表现出显著激活。我们的结果表明，干扰类型与脑激活之间存在分离。这些发现表明，SI和RI干扰可归因于不同的神经机制。这也表明前额叶皮层和扣带回皮层对各种类型的干扰具有不同的敏感性，并且反向斯特鲁普任务可能比斯特鲁普任务更有助于评估额叶功能障碍的精神病患者的干扰控制。
