冲突观察诱发的冲突适应具有领域一般性&#x0002A;

陈永强; 李志方; 陈安涛

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250206

PDF(1874 KB)

心理科学 ›› 2025, Vol. 48 ›› Issue (2) : 318-333. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250206

基础、实验与工效

冲突观察诱发的冲突适应具有领域一般性^*

陈永强¹, 李志方², 陈安涛^**3

作者信息 +

Domain-General Conflict Adaptation Induced by Conflict Observation

Chen Yongqiang¹, Li Zhifang², Chen Antao³

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

受限于任务设计的局限且未充分排除混淆因素的干扰,已有研究尚未说明冲突适应是领域一般的还是特定的。运用观察-反应设计和任务转换设计,同时严格排除特征整合和偶发学习等混淆因素,研究通过三个实验考察了这一问题。实验1发现冲突观察在Flanker任务中诱发了冲突适应。实验2发现冲突观察在Stroop-Flanker和Flanker-Stroop序列中均诱发了跨任务的冲突适应。实验3在重复实验2结果的基础上进一步发现,观察Flanker冲突在随后的反应Stroop任务中诱发了冲突适应,表现在脑电N450和SP成分上;同样地,观察Stroop冲突在随后的反应Flanker任务中也诱发了冲突适应,表现在脑电P3成分上。上述结果汇聚地表明冲突适应具有领域一般性特征。

Abstract

The generality and specificity of conflict adaptation across various domains can enhance our understanding of how the brain processes information and adapts to the environment. However, it remains unclear whether conflict adaptation is domain-general or domain-specific. Limitations in task design and insufficient control for confounding factors have contributed to this unresolved issue. In factorial designs, conflicts that compound within a single trial typically interact rather than operate independently, making it difficult to draw conclusions about domain specificity or generality. In contrast, task-switch designs can largely prevent such interactions by presenting different conflicts in separate trials. However, results obtained using task-switch designs have been inconsistent. Furthermore, feature integration, contingency learning, or temporal learning may have confounded the outcomes of previous factorial and task-switch designs. The present study aims to determine whether conflict adaptation is domain-general or domain-specific by employing a LOOK-DO transition, a task-switch design, and a confounder-minimized procedure in three experiments.
To control for feature integration and contingency learning, the stimuli were divided into two groups. Stimuli within each group were paired randomly, with no combinations made across groups. Stimuli from different groups were presented alternately. The LOOK-DO design required participants to observe in the previous trial and respond in the current trial, thereby helping to eliminate the influence of temporal learning on conflict adaptation. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to identify the central letter among five horizontally aligned letters in a letter version of the Flanker task. Prior to the presentation of these letters, a cue (“*” or “+”) was displayed for 500ms, followed by a jittered blank screen for 300~500ms. If the cue was “*”, participants needed to observe whether a conflict was present. Conversely, if the cue was “+”, participants were instructed to identify the central letter and provide a keypress response. An inter-trial interval of 800~1200ms preceded the next trial. In Experiment 2, participants completed both the Flanker task and a color-word Stroop task in separate trials within one of eleven blocks. The other settings in Experiment 2 were consistent with those in Experiment 1. Experiment 3 involved the same tasks as Experiment 2 but included the collection of EEG data from participants.
The main results indicate that conflict observation induced conflict adaptation in the Flanker task. This finding suggests that merely observing a conflict can trigger subsequent control adjustments, resulting in conflict adaptation. Furthermore, the LOOK Stroop conflict prompted the conflict adaptation in the DO Flanker task, and vice versa. This demonstrates that conflict observation can trigger cross-task conflict adaptation. The replication of the behavioral findings from Experiment 2, coupled with the significant conflict adaptation observed in the N450/SP during the Flanker-Stroop sequence and in the P3 during the Stroop-Flanker sequence, strengthens this conclusion. Overall, the above results indicate that conflict signals can initiate a general control adjustment process that leads to cross-task conflict adaptation at both the behavioral and neural levels. Furthermore, the significant conflict effects observed in the N2 and P3 components during the LOOK Flanker trials, as well as in the N450 and SP components during the LOOK Stroop task, provide compelling evidence that mere observation can generate conflict signals and trigger control adjustment processes. This finding aligns with the original definition of conflict in conflict monitoring theory, which defined conflict as the coactivation of incompatible representations. The generality of conflict adaptation may stem from the similar selective attention mechanisms present in both the Stroop and Flanker tasks. Additionally, observing conflict may enhance response readiness and improve the efficiency of the selective attention processes required to resolve the current conflict, ultimately facilitating the generality of conflict adaptation. Future research should operationally define similarity in different ways and utilize observation-response designs to further explore the relationship between similarity and conflict adaptation.

导出引用

陈永强, 李志方, 陈安涛. 冲突观察诱发的冲突适应具有领域一般性^*[J]. 心理科学. 2025, 48(2): 318-333 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250206

Chen Yongqiang, Li Zhifang, Chen Antao. Domain-General Conflict Adaptation Induced by Conflict Observation[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2025, 48(2): 318-333 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20250206

参考文献

[1] 陈安涛. (2019). 认知控制基本功能的神经机制. 生理学报, 71(1), 149-155.
[2] 杨国春, 李政汉, 伍海燕, 刘勋. (2019). 认知控制的一般性/特异性机制: 研究逻辑和争论. 生理学报, 71(1), 140-148.
[3] Bechara, A. (2005). Decision making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: A neurocognitive perspective. Nature Neuroscience, 8(11), 1458-1463.
[4] Botvinick M. M., Braver T. S., Barch D. M., Carter C. S., & Cohen J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624-652.
[5] Botvinick M. M., Cohen J. D., & Carter C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: An update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(12), 539-546.
[6] Braem S., Abrahamse E. L., Duthoo W., & Notebaert W. (2014). What determines the specificity of conflict adaptation? A review, critical analysis, and proposed synthesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1134.
[7] Braem S., Bugg J. M., Schmidt J. R., Crump M. J. C., Weissman D. H., Notebaert W., & Egner T. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(9), 769-783.
[8] Chen Y. Q., Gao W., Li Z. F., Yan M. M., Yin S. H., Hu N., & Chen A. (2024). Observation of conflict triggers conflict adaptation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 78(3), 190-202.
[9] Chen Y. Q., Li Z. F., Li Q., Wang J., Hu N., Zheng Y., & Chen A. T. (2024). The neural dynamics of conflict adaptation induced by conflict observation: Evidence from univariate and multivariate analysis. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 198, 112324.
[10] Clayson, P. E., & Larson, M. J. (2011). Conflict adaptation and sequential trial effects: Support for the conflict monitoring theory. Neuropsychologia, 49(7), 1953-1961.
[11] Cracco E., Braem S., & Brass M. (2022). Observing conflicting actions elicits conflict adaptation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(2), 493-505.
[12] Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2012). Conflicts as aversive signals. Brain and Cognition, 78(2), 94-98.
[13] Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(10), 374-380.
[14] Fernandez-Duque, D., & Knight, M. (2008). Cognitive control: Dynamic, sustained, and voluntary influences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(2), 340-355.
[15] Forster, S. E., & Cho, R. Y. (2014). Context specificity of post-error and post-conflict cognitive control adjustments. PLoS ONE, 9(3), Article e90281.
[16] Freitas A. L., Bahar M., Yang S., & Banai R. (2007). Contextual adjustments in cognitive control across tasks. Psychological Science, 18(12), 1040-1043.
[17] Funes M. J., Lupiáñez J., & Humphreys G. (2010). Analyzing the generality of conflict adaptation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(1), 147-161.
[18] Gratton G., Coles M. G., & Donchin E. (1983). A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 55(4), 468-484.
[19] Gratton G., Coles M. G. H., & Donchin E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480-506.
[20] Hinault T., Larcher K., Zazubovits N., Gotman J., & Dagher A. (2019). Spatio-temporal patterns of cognitive control revealed with simultaneous electroencephalography and functional magnetic resonance imaging. Human Brain Mapping, 40(1), 80-97.
[21] Hommel B., Proctor R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68(1), 1-17.
[22] Kałamała P., Szewczyk J., Senderecka M., & Wodniecka Z. (2018). Flanker task with equiprobable congruent and incongruent conditions does not elicit the conflict N2. Psychophysiology, 55(2), Article e12980.
[23] Kleiman T., Hassin R. R., & Trope Y. (2014). The control-freak mind: Stereotypical biases are eliminated following conflict-activated cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 498-503.
[24] Larson M. J., Clayson P. E., & Clawson A. (2014). Making sense of all the conflict: A theoretical review and critique of conflict-related ERPs. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 93(3), 283-297.
[25] Larson M. J., Clayson P. E., Kirwan C. B., & Weissman D. H. (2016). Event-related potential indices of congruency sequence effects without feature integration or contingency learning confounds. Psychophysiology, 53(6), 814-822.
[26] Larson M. J., Kaufman D. A. S., & Perlstein W. M. (2009). Neural time course of conflict adaptation effects on the Stroop task. Neuropsychologia, 47(3), 663-670.
[27] Li, Z., & Lou, J. F. (2019). Flanker tasks based on congruency manipulation are biased measures of selective attention in perceptual load studies. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 81(6), 1836-1845.
[28] Li Z. F., Wang J., Chen Y. Q., Li Q., Yin S. H., & Chen A. T. (2024). Attenuated conflict self-referential information facilitating conflict resolution. npj Science of Learning, 9(1), Article 47.
[29] Liotti M., Woldorff M. G., Perez III R., & Mayberg H. S. (2000). An ERP study of the temporal course of the Stroop color-word interference effect. Neuropsychologia, 38(5), 701-711.
[30] Liu P. D., Chen A. T., Li C., Li H., & West R. (2012). Conflict adaptation is reflected by response interference. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 457-467.
[31] Mayr U., Awh E., & Laurey P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5), 450-452.
[32] Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2008). Cognitive control acts locally. Cognition, 106(2), 1071-1080.
[33] Oberauer K., Lewandowsky S., Farrell S., Jarrold C., & Greaves M. (2012). Modeling working memory: An interference model of complex span. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19(5), 779-819.
[34] Parris B. A., Hasshim N., Wadsley M., Augustinova M., & Ferrand L. (2022). The loci of Stroop effects: A critical review of methods and evidence for levels of processing contributing to color-word Stroop effects and the implications for the loci of attentional selection. Psychological Research, 86(4), 1029-1053.
[35] Rawls E., Miskovic V., & Lamm C. (2020). Delta phase reset predicts conflict-related changes in P3 amplitude and behavior. Brain Research, 1730, Article 146662.
[36] Rey-Mermet A., Gade M., & Steinhauser M. (2019). Sequential conflict resolution under multiple concurrent conflicts: An ERP study. NeuroImage, 188, 411-418.
[37] Schmidt, J. R. (2013). Temporal learning and list-level proportion congruency: Conflict adaptation or learning when to respond? PLoS ONE, 8(11), Article e82320.
[38] Schmidt, J. R., & De Houwer, J. (2011). Now you see it, now you don't: Controlling for contingencies and stimulus repetitions eliminates the Gratton effect. Acta Psychologica, 138(1), 176-186.
[39] Schmidt, J. R., & Weissman, D. H. (2016). Congruency sequence effects and previous response times: Conflict adaptation or temporal learning? Psychological Research, 80(4), 590-607.
[40] Spinelli, G., & Lupker, S. J. (2022). Conflict-monitoring theory in overtime: Is temporal learning a viable explanation for the congruency sequence effect? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 48(5), 497-530.
[41] Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276-315.
[42] Tang D. D., Hu L., Li H., Zhang Q. L., & Chen A. T. (2013). The neural dynamics of conflict adaptation within a look-to-do transition. PLoS ONE, 8(2), Article e57912.
[43] Verbruggen F., Liefooghe B., Notebaert W., & Vandierendonck A. (2005). Effects of stimulus-stimulus compatibility and stimulus-response compatibility on response inhibition. Acta Psychologica, 120(3), 307-326.
[44] von Gunten C. D., Volpert-Esmond H. I., & Bartholow B. D. (2018). Temporal dynamics of reactive cognitive control as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 55(3), Article e13007.
[45] Weissman, D. H. (2020). Interacting congruency effects in the hybrid Stroop-Simon task prevent conclusions regarding the domain specificity or generality of the congruency sequence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(5), 945-967.
[46] West R., Jakubek K., Wymbs N., Perry M., & Moore K. (2005). Neural correlates of conflict processing. Experimental Brain Research, 167(1), 38-48.
[47] Wühr P., Duthoo W., & Notebaert W. (2015). Generalizing attentional control across dimensions and tasks: Evidence from transfer of proportion-congruent effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(4), 779-801.
[48] Wühr, P., & Heuer, H. (2017). Response preparation, response conflict, and the effects of irrelevant flanker stimuli. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 13(1), 70-82.
[49] Yang G. C., Xu H. H., Li Z. H., Nan W. Z., Wu H. Y., Li Q., & Liu X. (2021). The congruency sequence effect is modulated by the similarity of conflicts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(10), 1705-1719.
[50] Zhang M. K., Li Q., Li Y. L., Chen Y. Q., Gu Y., Yin S. H., & Chen A. T. (2023). Temporal dynamics of conflict adaptation across different conflict strengths. Psychophysiology, 60(1), Article e14160.