Spinelli Giacomo, Lupker Stephen J
Dipartimento di Psicologia, Universita degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca.
Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario.
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2023 May;49(5):675-700. doi: 10.1037/xlm0001144. Epub 2022 Jul 4.
In the standard Proportion-Congruent (PC) paradigm, performance is compared between a list containing mostly congruent (MC) stimuli (e.g., the word RED in the color red in the Stroop task; Stroop, 1935) and a list containing mostly incongruent (MI) stimuli (e.g., the word BLUE in red). The PC effect, the finding that the congruency effect (i.e., the latency difference between incongruent and congruent stimuli) is typically larger in an MC list, has been interpreted by the popular conflict-monitoring account (Botvinick et al., 2001) as reflecting a proactive process whereby attention to task-relevant information is adapted based on how frequently conflict from task-irrelevant information arises. Recently, however, alternative accounts of the PC effect have emerged that assume either that the PC effect reflects processes other than proactive conflict adaptation (e.g., stimulus-response contingency learning) or that proactive conflict adaptation is only engaged as a last resort (e.g., when contingency learning cannot be used to minimize interference). We examined these ideas in three experiments in which proactive conflict adaptation could be evaluated independently from processes that are normally confounded with it in the PC paradigm, while still allowing those processes, particularly contingency learning, to be used to minimize interference. Consistent with the conflict-monitoring account of the PC effect, but inconsistent with all the alternative accounts of the PC effect, evidence for proactive conflict adaptation emerged in all experiments. Although multiple processes may be engaged in the PC paradigm, this paradigm remains a valid tool for examining proactive conflict adaptation, its typical use. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
在标准的比例一致（PC）范式中，对包含大多一致（MC）刺激的列表（例如，在斯特鲁普任务中用红色呈现的单词RED；斯特鲁普，1935）和包含大多不一致（MI）刺激的列表（例如，用红色呈现的单词BLUE）之间的表现进行比较。PC效应，即发现一致性效应（即不一致和一致刺激之间的潜伏期差异）在MC列表中通常更大，已被流行的冲突监测理论（博特维尼克等人，2001）解释为反映了一种主动过程，即根据与任务无关信息产生冲突的频率，对与任务相关信息的注意力进行调整。然而，最近出现了对PC效应的其他解释，这些解释要么认为PC效应反映的是主动冲突适应之外的过程（例如，刺激-反应偶联学习），要么认为主动冲突适应只是在万不得已时才会启用（例如，当偶联学习无法用于最小化干扰时）。我们在三个实验中检验了这些观点，在这些实验中，可以独立于PC范式中通常与之混淆的过程来评估主动冲突适应，同时仍然允许这些过程，特别是偶联学习，用于最小化干扰。与PC效应的冲突监测理论一致，但与PC效应的所有其他解释不一致，所有实验中都出现了主动冲突适应的证据。尽管PC范式中可能涉及多个过程，但该范式仍然是检验主动冲突适应及其典型用途的有效工具。（《心理学文摘数据库记录》（c）2023美国心理学会，保留所有权利）
