Orientation Preferences Effect in the Flanker Task

作者: 彭申立 , 张 潇 :西南大学心理学部,重庆;

关键词: Flanker认知冲突刺激特征朝向偏好Flanker Cognitive Conflict Stimulus Features Orientation Preference

采用经典的箭头Flanker任务考察刺激特征对于认知冲突任务成绩的影响.对实验数据进行多次重复测量方差分析与简单效应分析,结果表明:1) Flanker效应显著(p < 0.001);2) 靶刺激朝右时,认知冲突成绩显著好于朝左时(p < 0.001);3) 四种条件下的认知冲突成绩差异显著(ps < 0.001),表现为RT (rrrrr)显著优于RT (lllll)显著优于RT (llrll)显著优于RT (rrlrr)。本研究发现Flanker任务中存在基于刺激特征的朝向偏好效应:当靶刺激为朝右的箭头时,反应时显著更快。进一步的研究将探索这种朝向偏好脑神经机制,及可能具备的进化学意义。

Abstract: This study explored the effects of target stimulus orientation, and consistency on orientation be-tween target and distraction stimulus on individuals’ cognitive conflict performance through an arrow Flanker task. Repeated ANOVA and simple effect analysis on the RTs data show that: 1) when orientation of target and distraction stimulus is consistent, performance is significantly better than inconsistent condition (F(1,43) = 505.250, p < 0.001), referring to a Flanker effect; 2) when target stimulus is right-oriented, performance is significantly better than that when left- oriented (F(1,43) = 19.515, p < 0.001); 3) performances on the four different conditions are significantly differentiated to each other: RT (rrrrr) < RT (lllll)< RT (llrll)< RT (rrlrr). The present study found an orientation preference effect in Flanker task; that is to say, right-oriented stimuli induce a significantly faster response than left-oriented stimuli. Further researches will focus on exploring the underlying brain mechanism of this orientation preference, and its potential evolutionary sense.

文章引用: 彭申立 , 张 潇 (2015) Flanker任务中的朝向偏好效应。 心理学进展, 5, 709-715. doi: 10.12677/AP.2015.511092


[1] 胡凤培, 王倩, 徐莲, 葛列众(2012). 基于Flanker, Stroop和Simon多重冲突驱动的认知控制机制. 心理科学, 35(2), 276-281.

[2] 刘培朵, 杨文静, 田夏, 陈安涛(2012). 冲突适应效应研究述评. 心理科学进展, 20(4), 532-541.

[3] 曲之毅, 刘惠军, 刘铁洋, 于斌(2015). 认知和情绪词Flanker任务的冲突效应和冲突适应效应分析. 心理与行为研究, 13(3), 334-340.

[4] 周宗泽, 郭永玉, 杨沈龙, 陈真珍(2014). 适应性记忆: 方位记忆的生存优势. 心理科学, 2, 009.

[5] Blasdel, G. G. (1992). Orientation Selectivity, Preference, and Continuity in Monkey Striate Cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 12, 3139-3161.

[6] Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict Monitoring and Anterior Cingulate Cortex: An Update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 539-546.

[7] Botvinick, M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). Conflict Monitoring versus Selection- for-Action in Anterior Cingulate Cortex. Nature, 402, 179-181.

[8] Bugg, J. M. (2008). Opposing Influences on Conflict-Driven Adaptation in the Eriksen Flanker Task. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1217-1227.

[9] Chapman, B., Stryker, M. P., & Bonhoeffer, T. (1996). Development of Orientation Preference Maps in Ferret Primary Visual Cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 16, 6443-6453.

[10] Clayson, P. E., & Larson, M. J. (2011). Conflict Adaptation and Sequential Trial Effects: Support for the Conflict Monitoring Theory. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1953-1961.

[11] Davelaar, E. J., & Stevens, J. (2009). Sequential Dependencies in the Eriksen Flanker Task: A Direct Comparison of Two Competing Accounts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 121-126.

[12] Egner, T. (2007). Congruency Sequence Effects and Cognitive Control. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 380-390.

[13] Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of Noise Letters upon the Identification of a Target Letter in a Nonsearch Task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143-149.

[14] Eriksen, C. W., & Schultz, D. W. (1979). Information Processing in Visual Search: A Continuous Flow Conception and Experimental Results. Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 249-263.

[15] Fenske, M. J., & Eastwood, J. D. (2003). Modulation of Focused Atten-tion by Faces Expressing Emotion: Evidence from Flanker Tasks. Emotion, 3, 327-343.

[16] Fischer, R., Plessow, F., Kunde, W., & Kiesel, A. (2010). Tri-al-to-Trial Modulations of the Simon Effect in Conditions of Attentional Limitations: Evidence from Dual Tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1576-1594.

[17] Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the Use of Information: Strategic Control of Activation of Responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480-506.

[18] Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2004). A Fea-ture-Integration Account of Sequential Effects in the Simon Task. Psychological Research, 68, 1-17.

[19] Kim, D. S., & Bonhoeffer, T. (1994). Reverse Occlusion Leads to a Precise Restoration of Orientation Preference Maps in Visual Cortex. Nature, 370, 370-372.

[20] Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict Adaptation Effects in the Absence of Executive Control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450-452.

[21] Nairne, J. S., Pandeirada, J. N., Gregory, K. J., & Van Arsdall, J. E. (2009). Adaptive Memory Fitness Relevance and the Hunt-er-Gatherer Mind. Psychological Science, 20, 740-746.

[22] Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2011). Conflict and Error Adaptation in the Simon Task. Acta Psychologica, 136, 212-216.

[23] Ochsner, K. N., Hughes, B., Robertson, E. R., Cooper, J. C., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2009). Neural Systems Supporting the Control of Affective and Cognitive Conflicts. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 1841-1854.

[24] Ullsperger, M., Bylsma, L. M., & Botvinick, M. M. (2005). The Conflict Adaptation Effect: It’s Not Just Priming. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 467-472.

[25] Verbruggen, F., Notebaert, W., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Stimulus- and Response-Conflict-Induced Cognitive Control in the Flanker Task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 328-333.

[26] Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian Learning of Cognitive Control: Dealing with Specific and Nonspecific Adaptation. Psychological Review, 115, 518-525.

[27] Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2009). Adaptation by Binding: A Learning Account of Cognitive Control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 252-257.

[28] Weliky, M., Bosking, W. H., & Fitzpatrick, D. (1996). A Systematic Map of Direction Preference in Primary Visual Cortex. Nature, 379, 725-728.