积极性反应策略调整：基于任务难度与提示线索的证据
Proactive Response-Strategy Adjustments: Evidence Based on Task Difficulty and Clues
摘要: 目的：考察不同难度任务的积极性反应策略调整是积极性调整还是由于任务需求。方法：采用停止信号范式，让被试在线索提示条件下对不同难度任务作反应。结果：信号相关与否线索条件下，相关条件下的无信号试次反应时和正确率都比无关条件下要高；不同信号比例线索条件下，高信号比例条件下的无信号试次反应时和正确率都比低信号比例条件下要高。但不管哪一种线索条件，高难度任务的反应时都比低难度要高，但正确率较低或没有差异。结论：被试在相同任务难度上一开始就采用积极调整的反应策略提高反应阈限，而不同任务难度的反应策略调整主要由于不同的任务需求。
Abstract: Objective: Proactive response-strategy adjustments under different task difficulties are due to the proactive adjustment or task requirement. Methods: Participants act on different difficult tasks in Stop-signal paradigm according to clues. Results: Under the conditions of Stop signals relevant or irrelevant and different signal frequency, reaction times and correct rate of no-signal trial of Stop signals relevant are higher than those of irrelevant signal, reaction times and correct rate of no-signal trial of high signal frequency are higher than those of low signal frequency. Under the conditions of Stop signals relevant or irrelevant, reaction times of no-signal trial of high difficulty are higher than those of low difficulty, but the correct rates of no-signal trial of high difficulty are lower than those of low difficulty. Under the conditions of different frequency, reaction times of no-signal trial of high difficulty are higher than those of low difficulty, but the correct rates of no-signal trial of high difficulty are same with low difficulty. Conclusion: In the processing of response inhibition, participants may make proactive adjustment to enhance threshold of Response under same difficult tasks, and make adjustments due to task requirement under different difficult tasks.
文章引用：朱海, 白学军 (2013). 积极性反应策略调整：基于任务难度与提示线索的证据. 心理学进展, 3(4), 208-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.12677/AP.2013.34032

参考文献

[1] 沈德立, 白学军(2006). 素质教育中高效率学习的心理机制研究. 天津: 天津社会科学院出版社, 313-320.
[2] 孙瑶, 周仁来(2009). 任务难度对前瞻记忆TAP效应影响的研究. 心理科学, 32期, 528-530.
[3] Bissett, P. G., & Logan G. D. (2011). Balancing cognitive demands: Control adjustments in the stop-signal paradigm. Journal of Experi- mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 392-404.
[4] Bissett, P. G., & Logan G. D. (2012). Post-stop-signal slowing: Strate- gies dominate reflexes and implicit learning. Journal of Experimen- tal Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 746-757.
[5] Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psycholo- gical Review, 108, 624-652.
[6] Holroyd, C. B., Yeung, N., Coles, M. G. H., & Cohen, J. D. (2005). A mechanism for error detection in speeded response time tasks. Jour- nal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 163-191.
[7] Leotti, L. A., & Wager, T. D. (2010). Motivational influences on re- sponse inhibition measures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 430-447.
[8] Liddle, E. B., Scerif, G., Hollis, C. P., Batty, M. J., Groom, M. J., Liotti, M., & Liddle, P. F. (2009). Looking before you leap: A theory of motivated control of action. Cognition, 112, 141-158.
[9] Logan, G. D., & Cowan, W. B. (1984). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A theory of an act of control. Psychological Review, 91, 295-327.
[10] Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefron- tal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167-202.
[11] Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49-100.
[12] Rieger, M., & Gauggel, S. (1999). Inhibitory aftereffects in the stop signal paradigm. British Journal of Psychology, 90, 509-518.
[13] Rinkenauer, G., Osman, A., Ulrich, R., Muller-Gethmann, H., & Mattes, S. (2004). The locus of speed-accuracy trade-off in reaction time: In- ferences from the lateralized readiness potential. Journal of Experi- mental Psychology: General, 133, 261-282.
[14] Schachar, R. J., Chen, S., Logan, G. D., Ornstein, T. J., Crosbie, J., Ickowicz, A., & Pakulak, A. (2004). Evidence for an error monitor- ing deficit in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Ab- normal Child Psychology, 32, 285-293.
[15] Stuphorn, V., & Schall, J. D. (2006). Executive control of counterman- ding saccades by the supplementary eye field. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 925-931.
[16] Vandierendonck, A., De Vooght, G., & Van der Goten, K. (1998). In- terfering with the central executive by means of a random interval repetition task. Quarterly Journal of Expe-rimental Psychology Sec- tion Human Experimental Psychology, 51, 197-218.
[17] Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2009). Proactive adjustments of re- sponse strategies in the stop-signal paradigm. Journal of Experi- mental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 835- 854.
[18] Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2004). The interaction between stop signal inhibition and distractor interference in the flanker and Stroop task. Acta Psychologica, 116, 21-37.
[19] Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., Notebaert, W., & Vandierendonck, A. (2005). Effects of stimulus-stimulus compatibility and sitimulus-re- sponse compatibility on response inhibition. Acta Psychologica, 120, 307-326.
[20] Verbruggen, F., Logan, G. D., & Stevens, M. A. (2008). STOP-IT: Windows executable software for the stop-signal paradigm. Behav- ior Research Methods, 40, 479-483.
[21] Verbruggen, F., Logan, G. D., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2008). Short-term aftereffects of response inhibition: Repetition priming or between-trial control adjustment? Journal of Experimen- tal Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 413-426.