提供目标提醒消除了工作记忆容量与斯特鲁普效应错误之间的关系。
Providing goal reminders eliminates the relationship between working memory capacity and Stroop errors.
作者信息
Hood Audrey V B, Hutchison Keith A
机构信息
Department of Psychology, Montana State University, P.O. Box 173440, Bozeman, MT, 59717-3440, USA.
出版信息
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021 Jan;83(1):85-96. doi: 10.3758/s13414-020-02169-x. Epub 2020 Nov 9.
Previous research has shown that list-wide effects in the Stroop task interact with working memory capacity (WMC). The predominant explanation for this relationship is goal maintenance. However, some researchers have challenged whether list-wide effects truly reflect goal-maintenance abilities. In the current study, we examined whether goal maintenance explains higher WMC individuals' better performance within mostly congruent (MC) Stroop lists by providing periodic goal reminders to some of the participants. Two hundred and twelve participants from Montana State University first completed the Automated Operation Span and were then assigned to either a true control, goal reminder, or nongoal reminder condition. During the Stroop task, the true control condition received rest breaks every 60 trials, whereas the goal reminder and nongoal reminder conditions stopped every 12 trials to vocalize either the task goal or a rehearsed statement, respectively. We regressed Stroop errors on reminder condition and WMC, comparing each group to the true control. For the Goal Reminder × True Control comparison, there was an interaction, such that WMC negatively correlated with Stroop errors in the true control, but not in the goal reminder condition. In contrast, for the Nongoal Reminder × True Control comparison, there was only an overall effect of WMC, with greater Stroop errors for those lower in WMC. These data provide evidence that goal reminders eliminate the relationship between WMC and Stroop interference.
先前的研究表明,斯特鲁普任务中的全列表效应与工作记忆容量(WMC)相互作用。对这种关系的主要解释是目标维持。然而,一些研究人员对全列表效应是否真的反映目标维持能力提出了质疑。在当前的研究中,我们通过向一些参与者提供定期的目标提醒,来检验目标维持是否能解释在大多一致(MC)的斯特鲁普列表中,较高WMC个体表现更好的原因。来自蒙大拿州立大学的212名参与者首先完成了自动化操作广度测试,然后被分配到真正的控制组、目标提醒组或非目标提醒组。在斯特鲁普任务中,真正的控制组每60次试验后休息,而目标提醒组和非目标提醒组每12次试验后分别停下来说出任务目标或一段排练好的陈述。我们将斯特鲁普错误率对提醒条件和WMC进行回归分析,将每个组与真正的控制组进行比较。对于目标提醒组与真正控制组的比较,存在交互作用,即WMC与真正控制组中的斯特鲁普错误率呈负相关,但在目标提醒组中并非如此。相比之下,对于非目标提醒组与真正控制组的比较,仅存在WMC的总体效应,WMC较低的个体斯特鲁普错误率更高。这些数据提供了证据,表明目标提醒消除了WMC与斯特鲁普干扰之间的关系。