Yang Qian, Notebaert Wim, Pourtois Gilles
Cognitive and Affective Psychophysiology Laboratory, Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Department of Experimental Psychology and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Psychol Res. 2019 Feb;83(1):1-12. doi: 10.1007/s00426-018-1099-z. Epub 2018 Sep 22.
The congruency sequence effect (CSE) reflected by the influence of the congruency of the previous trial on the current one translates improved cognitive control (CC). Yet, it remains debated whether reactive or proactive control processes mostly contribute to this effect. To address this question, we administered a Stroop task controlling for effects of feature repetition and contingency learning to a large group of participants, where we manipulated the frequency of incongruent trials in a block-wise fashion to induce either proactive (high-conflict frequency) or reactive (low-conflict frequency) control. Moreover, as the presentation of trial-by-trial evaluative feedback could influence control processes operating at a local level, we compared effect of evaluative vs. neutral feedback on the CSE, for each control mode separately. We tested the prediction that CSE should be influenced by conflict frequency and feedback type concurrently. Results showed that when evaluative feedback was used, the CSE was increased if conflict frequency was low, confirming that the CSE stemmed from reactive control mainly. If conflict frequency was high, a different sequence effect was observed. The use of neutral feedback abolished the modulation of the CSE by conflict frequency. Moreover, correlation results showed that reappraisal, corresponding to a proactive emotion regulation strategy, was negatively related to the CSE in this condition, suggesting that proactive control can alleviate the reactive dominance of the CSE. Altogether, these results suggest that CC is flexible, and its expression depends on the subtle balance between proactive and reactive control processes.
前一试次的一致性对当前试次的影响所反映出的一致性序列效应（CSE）体现了认知控制（CC）的改善。然而，反应性控制过程还是主动性控制过程对这种效应的贡献更大，这一点仍存在争议。为了解决这个问题，我们对一大群参与者进行了一项控制了特征重复和偶然性学习效应的Stroop任务，我们以分块的方式操纵不一致试次的频率，以诱导主动性（高冲突频率）或反应性（低冲突频率）控制。此外，由于逐试次的评价性反馈的呈现可能会影响在局部水平上运行的控制过程，我们分别比较了评价性反馈与中性反馈对每种控制模式下CSE的影响。我们检验了CSE应同时受到冲突频率和反馈类型影响的预测。结果表明，当使用评价性反馈时，如果冲突频率较低，CSE会增加，这证实了CSE主要源于反应性控制。如果冲突频率较高，则会观察到不同的序列效应。中性反馈的使用消除了冲突频率对CSE的调节作用。此外，相关性结果表明，对应于主动性情绪调节策略的重新评价，在这种情况下与CSE呈负相关，这表明主动性控制可以减轻CSE的反应性主导。总之，这些结果表明认知控制是灵活的，其表现取决于主动性和反应性控制过程之间的微妙平衡。
