Pavlov proposed the theory of higher nervous activity, and divided the neural activities of humans and animals into four types. Different types of individuals have different behavioral performances and cognitive processing characteristics. At present, while most of the researches on neural types and working memory are behavioral experiments, the neural mechanism of the differences in working memory of different neural types is not clear. Therefore, this study focuses on the neural mechanism of working memory of different neural types by using event-related potentials technique (ERPs).
Before the normal experiment, 1263 college students were tested using 80-8 Neural Type Test Scale, with each 15 students for the flexible, quiet, excitatory and inhibitory type randomly selected from the subjects (a student of the flexible type did not complete all the experimental tasks) .The 59 subjects were engaged in and finished N-back tasks, the behavioral data and ERP data in the task were recorded and analyzed.
Behavioral results showed that: (1) In accuracy, the main effect of task type was significant (p < .001), task of 2-back was significantly higher than that of 3-back; the main effect of neural type was significant (p = .001), the flexible type was significantly higher than the excitatory (p = .01) and inhibitory type (p = .001), there was no difference between the quiet type and the excitatory type, and there was no difference between the excitatory type and the inhibitory type either. (2) In reaction time, the main effect of task type was significant (p < .001), task of 2-back was significantly higher than that of 3-back; the main effect of neural type was significant(p < .001), the quiet type was borderline significantly higher than the excitatory type(p = .06) and the inhibitory type(p = .07), the flexible type was significantly higher than the excitatory type (p < .01) and the inhibitory type (p= .004), there was no differences between the flexible type and the quiet type, excitatory type group and inhibitory type had no differences either, the interaction between neural type and task type was not significant. The ERP results showed that: (1) On the P3 amplitude of the target trials, the main effect of task type was significant (p < .001), the P3 amplitudes of 2-back was significantly higher than 3-back; the main effect of neural type was significant (p < .05), flexible type group was borderline significantly higher than the inhibitory type group (p < .05), there was no difference between other types. (2) On the P3 amplitude of the non-target trials, the main effect of task type was significant (p = .001), the P3 amplitudes of 2-back was significantly higher than 3-back; the main effect of neural type was significant (p < .05), the flexible type was significantly higher than the inhibitory type group (p = .03), there was no difference between other types. (3) On the P3 latency of the target and non-target trials, the main effect of task type was not significant, the main effect of neural type was not significant, and the interaction between neural type and task type was not significant either.
In conclusion, the present study found that there were significant differences between subjects with different neural types in the working memory, the flexible type was higher than the excitatory type and the inhibitory type in accuracy. For the ERP results, the P3 amplitude of the flexible type was significantly higher than the inhibitory type, and there was no difference between the types in the P3 latency. These findings suggested that the difference between the flexible type and the inhibitory type was not due to the matching subtask of working memory, but due to the updating subtask of working memory.
Key words
neural types /
working memory /
N-back /
P3
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] 巴甫洛夫. (1956). 高级神经活动研究论文集. 上海卫生出版社.
[2] 代小东, 于红军, 丁锦红. (2015). 气质与眼动控制的关系. 心理科学, 38(3), 666-671.
[3] 付全. (2011). 我国优秀击剑运动员神经活动特性的研究. 北京体育大学学报, 34(2), 68-70.
[4] 郭秀文, 魏复活. (2008). 艺术体操运动员的气质类型与选材. 西北师范大学学报(自然科学版), 44(6), 107-109.
[5] 李政. (2019). 不同神经类型的篮球运动员应激反应特征研究 (硕士学位论文). 山东师范大学, 济南.
[6] 陆周琳. (2016). 知觉速度、工作记忆和神经类型的潜变量研究 (硕士学位论文). 苏州大学.
[7] 彭聃龄. (2019). 普通心理学. 北京师范大学出版社.
[8] 史新广. (2020). 神经类型与执行功能的关系. 心理科学, 43(4), 801-807.
[9] 孙伟. (2016). 中央执行功能、流体智力与神经类型的关系研究 (硕士学位论文). 苏州大学.
[10] 王林, 刘江南. (1996). 短跑步频与肌纤维神经类型之间的关系. 广州体育学院学报, 16(2), 33-39, 5.
[11] 肖熙然. (2009). 不同竞赛角色篮球运动员的大脑机能能力及其特性. 上海体育学院学报, 33(6), 54-57.
[12] 张卿华, 王文英. (1993). 人的神经类型测评研究. 高等教育出版社.
[13] 张卿华, 王文英. (2017). 人的神经类型研究. 苏州大学出版社.
[14] Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289-300.
[15] Brehmer Y., Rieckmann A., Bellander M., Westerberg H., Fischer H., & Bäckman L. (2011). Neural correlates of training-related working-memory gains in old age. NeuroImage, 58(4), 1110-1120.
[16] Brouwer A. M., Hogervorst M. A., van Erp, J. B. F., Heffelaar T., Zimmerman P. H., & Oostenveld R. (2012). Estimating workload using EEG spectral power and ERPs in the n-back task. Journal of Neural Engineering, 9(4), Article 045008.
[17] Covey T. J., Shucard J. L., & Shucard D. W. (2017). Event-related brain potential indices of cognitive function and brain resource reallocation during working memory in patients with Multiple Sclerosis. Clinical Neurophysiology, 128(4), 604-621.
[18] Covey T. J., Shucard J. L., & Shucard D. W. (2019). Working memory training and perceptual discrimination training impact overlapping and distinct neurocognitive processes: Evidence from event-related potentials and transfer of training gains. Cognition, 182, 50-72.
[19] Dong S. S., Reder L. M., Yao Y., Liu Y. Q., & Chen F. Y. (2015). Individual differences in working memory capacity are reflected in different ERP and EEG patterns to task difficulty. Brain Research, 1616, 146-156.
[20] Huang Z. B., Wang H., Rao X. R., Zhong G. F., Hu W. H., & Sheng G. Q. (2011). Different effects of scopolamine on the retrieval of spatial memory and fear memory. Behavioural Brain Research, 221(2), 604-609.
[21] Kiyonaga, A., & Egner, T. (2015). Working memory representations produce inhibition of similar (but not identical) stimuli in visual attention. Journal of Vision, 15(12), Article 544.
[22] Kok, A. (2001). On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology, 38(3), 557-577.
[23] Kramer A. F., Strayer D. L., & Buckley J. (1991). Task versus component consistency in the development of automatic processing: A psychophysiological assessment. Psychophysiology, 28(4), 425-437.
[24] Lenartowicz A., Escobedo-Quiroz R., & Cohen. J. D. (2010). Updating of context in working memory: An event-related potential study. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 10(2), 298-315.
[25] McEvoy L. K., Smith M. E., & Gevins A. (1998). Dynamic cortical networks of verbal and spatial working memory: Effects of memory load and task practice. Cerebral Cortex, 8(7), 563-574.
[26] 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(1), 49-100.
[27] Polich, J. (2007). Updating P300: An integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(10), 2128-2148.
[28] Salmi J., Vilà-Balló A., Soveri A., Rostan C., Rodríguez-Fornells A., Lehtonen M., & Laine M. (2019). Working memory updating training modulates a cascade of event-related potentials depending on task load. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 166, Article 107085.
[29] Shiran, A., & Breznitz, Z. (2011). The effect of cognitive training on recall range and speed of information processing in the working memory of dyslexic and skilled readers. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 24(5), 524-537.
[30] Watter S., Geffen G. M., & Geffen L. B. (2001). The n-back as a dual-task: P300 morphology under divided attention. Psychophysiology, 38(6), 998-1003.
PDF(2297 KB)
