• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在联合 Stroop 任务中没有任务共同表现的证据。

No evidence of task co-representation in a joint Stroop task.

机构信息

Center for Mind/Brain Sciences (CIMeC), University of Trento, Corso Bettini 31, 38068, Rovereto, TN, Italy.

出版信息

Psychol Res. 2019 Jul;83(5):852-862. doi: 10.1007/s00426-017-0909-z. Epub 2017 Aug 29.

DOI:10.1007/s00426-017-0909-z
PMID:28852867
Abstract

People working together on a task must often represent the goals and salient items of their partner. The aim of the present study was to study the influence of joint task representations in an interference task in which the congruency relies on semantic identity. If task representations are shared between partners in a joint Stroop task (co-representation account), we hypothesized that items in the response set of one partner might influence performance of the other. In Experiment 1, pairs of participants sat side by side. Each participant was instructed to press one of two buttons to indicate which of two colors assigned to them was present, ignoring the text and responding only to the pixel color. There were three types of incongruent distractor words: names of colors from their own response set, names of colors from the other partner's response set, and neutral words for colors not used as font colors. The results of Experiment 1 showed that when people were doing this task together, distractor words from the partner's response set interfered more than neutral words and just as much as the words from their own response color set. However, in three follow-up experiments (Experiments 2a, 2b, and 2c), we found an elevated interference for the other response-set words even though no co-actor was present. The overall pattern of results across our study suggests that an alternative response set, regardless of whether it belonged to a co-actor or to a non-social no-go condition, evoked equal amounts of interference comparable to those of the own response set. Our findings are in line with a theory of common coding, in which all events-irrespective of their social nature-are represented and can influence behavior.

摘要

人们在共同完成任务时,必须经常代表其伙伴的目标和重要项目。本研究的目的是研究在一项干扰任务中共同任务表示的影响,其中一致性依赖于语义身份。如果在联合 Stroop 任务中合作伙伴之间共享任务表示(共同表示理论),我们假设一个伙伴的反应集中的项目可能会影响另一个伙伴的表现。在实验 1 中,一对参与者并排而坐。每个参与者都被指示按下两个按钮之一,以指示分配给他们的两个颜色中的哪一个存在,忽略文本,只对像素颜色做出反应。有三种类型的不一致干扰词:来自自己反应集的颜色名称、来自另一个伙伴反应集的颜色名称和未用作字体颜色的颜色的中性词。实验 1 的结果表明,当人们一起做这个任务时,来自伙伴反应集的干扰词比中性词干扰更大,与来自自己反应颜色集的词一样多。然而,在三个后续实验(实验 2a、2b 和 2c)中,即使没有共同参与者,我们也发现其他反应集的词会引起更高的干扰。我们研究的整体结果模式表明,无论是否属于共同参与者或非社会禁止条件,替代反应集都会引起与自己反应集相当的干扰。我们的研究结果与共同编码理论一致,根据该理论,所有事件——无论其社会性质如何——都被表示出来并可以影响行为。

相似文献

1
No evidence of task co-representation in a joint Stroop task.在联合 Stroop 任务中没有任务共同表现的证据。
Psychol Res. 2019 Jul;83(5):852-862. doi: 10.1007/s00426-017-0909-z. Epub 2017 Aug 29.
2
Is Your Color My Color? Dividing the Labor of the Stroop Task Between Co-actors.你的颜色是我的颜色吗?共同行动者之间Stroop任务的分工
Front Psychol. 2018 Aug 6;9:1407. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01407. eCollection 2018.
3
Filling a gap in the semantic gradient: color associates and response set effects in the Stroop task.填补语义梯度中的空白:斯特鲁普任务中的颜色联想与反应集效应
Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Apr;13(2):310-5. doi: 10.3758/bf03193849.
4
Verbal coding and the elimination of Stroop interference in a matching task.言语编码与匹配任务中斯特鲁普干扰的消除
Am J Psychol. 1990 Summer;103(2):195-215.
5
Effects of response type and set size on Stroop color-word performance.反应类型和刺激集大小对斯特鲁普颜色-文字任务表现的影响。
Percept Mot Skills. 1983 Jun;56(3):735-43. doi: 10.2466/pms.1983.56.3.735.
6
Disentangling Genuine Semantic Stroop Effects in Reading from Contingency Effects: On the Need for Two Neutral Baselines.区分阅读中真正的语义斯特鲁普效应与偶然效应:论两个中性基线的必要性。
Front Psychol. 2016 Mar 17;7:386. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00386. eCollection 2016.
7
The magic of words reconsidered: Investigating the automaticity of reading color-neutral words in the Stroop task.重新审视文字的魔力:探究斯特鲁普任务中阅读颜色中性词的自动化过程。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017 Mar;43(3):369-384. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000311. Epub 2016 Sep 22.
8
Modulation of conflicts in the Stroop effect.斯特鲁普效应中冲突的调节
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2018 Sep;189:93-102. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.10.007. Epub 2017 Nov 1.
9
The semantic Stroop effect is controlled by endogenous attention.语义斯特鲁普效应受内源性注意控制。
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2018 Nov;44(11):1730-1742. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000552. Epub 2018 Apr 19.
10
An automatic red-female association tested by the Stroop task.Stroop 任务测试的自动红色-女性联想。
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2023 Aug;238:103982. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.103982. Epub 2023 Jul 19.

引用本文的文献

1
The influence of advanced information on co-representation in a shared finger precuing task.先进信息对共享手指预提示任务中共同表征的影响。
Exp Brain Res. 2025 Jul 2;243(7):183. doi: 10.1007/s00221-025-07128-2.
2
The standard and reversed attentional boost effects in a joint action task.联合行动任务中的标准和反向注意增强效应。
Mem Cognit. 2025 May 30. doi: 10.3758/s13421-025-01735-8.
3
Cooperation and competition have same benefits but different costs.合作与竞争有相同的益处,但成本不同。

本文引用的文献

1
Neural correlates of verbal joint action: ERPs reveal common perception and action systems in a shared-Stroop task.言语联合行动的神经关联:事件相关电位揭示了共享Stroop任务中的共同感知和行动系统。
Brain Res. 2016 Oct 15;1649(Pt A):79-89. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2016.08.025. Epub 2016 Aug 20.
2
The joint flanker effect and the joint Simon effect: On the comparability of processes underlying joint compatibility effects.联合侧翼效应与联合西蒙效应:关于联合兼容性效应背后过程的可比性
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2017 Sep;70(9):1808-1823. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1207690. Epub 2016 Jul 22.
3
Stimulus-response correspondence in go-nogo and choice tasks: Are reactions altered by the presence of an irrelevant salient object?
iScience. 2024 Jun 18;27(7):110292. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.110292. eCollection 2024 Jul 19.
4
Interference in the shared-Stroop task: a comparison of self- and other-monitoring.共享斯特鲁普任务中的干扰:自我监测与他人监测的比较。
R Soc Open Sci. 2022 Apr 27;9(4):220107. doi: 10.1098/rsos.220107. eCollection 2022 Apr.
5
A Simon-like effect in Go/No-Go tasks performed in isolation.在单独进行的 Go/No-Go 任务中出现的西蒙效应。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Jun;26(3):1008-1019. doi: 10.3758/s13423-018-1534-6.
6
Is Your Color My Color? Dividing the Labor of the Stroop Task Between Co-actors.你的颜色是我的颜色吗?共同行动者之间Stroop任务的分工
Front Psychol. 2018 Aug 6;9:1407. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01407. eCollection 2018.
7
When task sharing reduces interference: evidence for division-of-labour in Stroop-like tasks.当任务分担减少干扰时:stroop 样任务中分工的证据。
Psychol Res. 2020 Mar;84(2):327-342. doi: 10.1007/s00426-018-1044-1. Epub 2018 Jul 3.
“是”与“否”及选择任务中的刺激-反应对应关系:无关显著物体的存在会改变反应吗?
Psychol Res. 2016 Nov;80(6):912-934. doi: 10.1007/s00426-015-0699-0. Epub 2015 Aug 30.
4
Task representation in individual and joint settings.个体和联合情境中的任务表征。
Front Hum Neurosci. 2015 May 12;9:268. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00268. eCollection 2015.
5
Referential coding does not rely on location features: Evidence for a nonspatial joint Simon effect.参照编码不依赖于位置特征:非空间联合西蒙效应的证据。
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2015 Feb;41(1):186-95. doi: 10.1037/a0038548. Epub 2014 Dec 22.
6
The joint Simon effect: a review and theoretical integration.联合西蒙效应:综述与理论整合。
Front Psychol. 2014 Sep 5;5:974. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00974. eCollection 2014.
7
Prediction in joint action: what, when, and where.联合行动中的预测:是什么、何时以及何地。
Top Cogn Sci. 2009 Apr;1(2):353-67. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01024.x.
8
The joint flanker effect: less social than previously thought.联合侧翼效应:不如先前认为的那么具有社会性。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2014 Oct;21(5):1224-30. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0583-8.
9
Keys and seats: Spatial response coding underlying the joint spatial compatibility effect.按键与位置:联合空间兼容性效应背后的空间反应编码
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2013 Nov;75(8):1725-36. doi: 10.3758/s13414-013-0524-z.
10
The (not so) social Simon effect: a referential coding account.非社会性西蒙效应:一种参照编码解释。
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2013 Oct;39(5):1248-60. doi: 10.1037/a0031031. Epub 2013 Jan 21.