关键词: 认知控制, 反应性控制, 主动性控制, 序列一致性效应, 比例一致性效应

Abstract: Proportion congruent effect (PCE) and Sequential congruent effect (SCE) are two well-known effects associated with conflict control. On the framework of dual model of cognitive control, the SCE is believed to reflect the Reactive control and PCE is believed to reflect the Proactive control. An important issue when studying cognitive controls is whether the two cognitive controls are domain-general or domain-specific. The results related to the topic are quite diverse. One importan factor influencing the results is how to combine the two types of conflict. The present study used factorial task-crossing designs to combine the color Stroop task and Simon task by presenting the color word at peripheral location, such that each stimulus can be congurent or incongruent with respect to both Stroop and Simon conflict conflicts at the same time. The design can avoid any task switching effects. The different types of conflict are manipulated simultaneously in the design enable one to determine there could be a single control resource or there could be separate conflict-specific control resources. Meanwihle we introduced a proportion congruency manipulation for Stroop conflict task whereas the Simon conflict were displayed with the same incongruent-to-congruent ratio. Specifically, in the mostly congruent (MC) context, 80% of Stroop task were congruent, while 20% were incongruent; in the mostly congruent (MI) context, 20% of Stroop task were congruent, while 80% were incongruent. However, for Simon task, there were equal proportions of congruent and incongruent trials for both the MC context and MI context. For SC effect, we analyzed trial to trial conflict adaptation with 2 previous trial congruent (congurent, incongruent) × 2 current trial congruent (congurent, incongruent) two factors repeated ANOVON on the Stroop-Stroop dimension and Stroop-Simon dimension.The analysis showed that there was a significant previous×current trial interaction on Stroop-Stroop dimension, indicating that stimulus-based conflict on previous trial enhanced conflict resolution in the subsequent stimulus-based conflict. However, there was no interaction between previous trial congurency and current trial congruency on Stroop-Simon dimension, indicating that stimulus-based conflict on previous trial can not results in superior conflict resolution of response-based conflict on the current trial. Therefore there was no evidenc of conflict resolution generalizing across sources of conflict, suggesting that the reactive control reflected by SC effect is domain-specific. For the PC effect, we carried out 2 proportion congruency (MC, MI)×2 current Stroop congruency (congruent, incongruen) ×2 current Simon congruency (congruent, incongruen) three factors repeated measure ANOVA. The proportion congruency by current Stroop congruency was significant. The analysis also revealed a significant interaction between proportion congruency and current Simon congruency. The two interactions were maily mediated by faster responses to incongruent trial in MI context compared to MC context. PC effect on the two tasks showed that proactive cognitive control reflected by PCE is domain general. The present data provide evidenc to support the dual model of control, one reactive and one proactive. The results have important implication to understanding the mechnisem of cognitive control.

Key words: Cognitive control, Reactive control, Proactive control, Sequential congruent effect, Proportion congruent effect