Journals / Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi / 2009 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 2

Perceptual conflict and response competition: Event-related potentials of the stroop effect

Algısal çelişki ve tepki rekabeti: Stroop etkisine ilişkin olay-ilişkili potansiyeller

Pages
127–137
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was concluded that these earlier and later activations were associated with response competition and error detection processes, respectively.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of the present study was to analyze electrophysiological activity associated with the Stroop effect.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Method: The sample included 50 healthy volunteer adults (23 female and 27 male) from the university population.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was concluded that these earlier and later activations were associated with response competition and error detection processes, respectively.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the present study was to analyze electrophysiological activity associated with the Stroop effect. Method: The sample included 50 healthy volunteer adults (23 female and 27 male) from the university population. Stimulation, recording and analyses were carried under NeuroScan 4.2 hardware-software system. The effect of the experimental variables (stimulus congruency, response accuracy and electrode location) on event-related potentials (ERPs) was studied using 2×2×3 analysis of variance for repeated measures. Results: The Stroop effect was demonstrated as prolonged reaction time to incongruent stimuli and increased total number of missed stimuli. Principal components analysis (PCA) showed that Stroop performance was related such factors as selective attention, interference, and resistance to interference. The electrophysiological Stroop effect was demonstrated as increased amplitude of P3 and N4 peaks for incongruent stimuli, and of N2, P3, N3, and N4 peaks for incorrect responses. Conclusion: Increased amplitude of P3 and N4 peaks associated with stimulus-related activation has been suggested to reflect conflict detection process. The variations in amplitudes for incorrect responses were complicated. While the amplitude of the N2 and P3 components increased only for incongruent stimuli, those of the N3 and N4 components increased for both congruent and incongruent stimuli. It was concluded that these earlier and later activations were associated with response competition and error detection processes, respectively. In this respect, these findings support both the perceptual conflict and the response competition hypotheses of Stroop interference.

Özet

Amaç: Mevcut çalışmanın amacı, algısal çelişki ve tepki rekabeti hipotezleri ile açıklanmaya çalışılan Stroop etkisinin yol açtığı elektrofizyolojik aktiviteleri analiz etmektir. Yöntem: Örneklem üniversite popülasyonundan 50 (23 kadın 27 erkek) sağlıklı gönüllü yetişkini içermiştir. Uyarım, kayıt ve analiz işlemlerinde NeuroScan 4.2 donanım-yazılım sistemi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Stroop bozucu etkisi, davranışsal olarak, uyuşmayan uyarıcılara ilişkin tepki zamanının uzaması ve tepki verilmekte gecikilen uyarıcı sayısının artması olarak elde edilmiştir. Temel bileşenler analizinde (TBA) Stroop performansının seçici dikkat, bozucu etki ve bozucu etkiye direnç faktörlerini içerdiği belirlenmiştir. Stroop bozucu etkisi, elektrofizyolojik olarak ise uyuşmayan uyarıcılara ilişkin P3 ve N4, yanlış tepkilere ilişkin olarak da N2, P3, N3 ve N4 bileşenlerinin genliklerinde artış olarak elde edilmiştir. Sonuç: P3 ve N4 zirvelerine ilişkin genlik artışının çelişki belirleme sürecini yansıttığı sonucuna varılmıştır. Yanlış tepkilere ilişkin genlik artışı değişiklikleri ise karmaşıktır. N2 ve P3 bileşenlerindeki genlik artışı yalnızca uyuşmayan uyarıcılarda, N3 ve N4 bileşenlerinin genliği ise hem uyuşmayan hem de uyuşan uyarıcılarda artmıştır. Söz konusu daha erken ve geç aktivitelerin sırasıyla tepki rekabeti ve hata belirleme süreçleri ile ilişkili olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Söz konusu bulgular, Stroop etkisini açıklamada öne sürülen algısal çelişki ve tepki rekabeti hipotezlerinin her ikisinin de geçerli olduğunu desteklemektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BEKÇİ, B., KARAKAŞ, S. (2009). Perceptual conflict and response competition: Event-related potentials of the stroop effect. Türk Psikiyatri Dergisi, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 2, 127–137. https://ajindex.com/articles/90241

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Alain C, McNeely HE, He Y ve ark. (2002) Neurophysiological evidence of error-monitoring deficits in patients with schizophrenia. Cereb Cortex, 12: 840-6.
  2. Atkinson CM, Drysdale KA, Fulham WR ve ark. (2003) Event-related potentials to Stroop and reverse Stroop stimuli. Int J Psychophysiol, 47: 1-21.
  3. Başar E (1999) Brain Function and Oscillations: II. Integrative Brain Function. Neurophysiology and Cognitive Processes. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. Bekçi B (2007) Üst-bellek türlerinin beyin elektrofizyolojik tepkileriyle ilişkisi. Yayınlanmamış Doktora Tezi (Deneysel Psikoloji). Hacettepe Üniversitesi,
  4. Ankara.
  5. Burke DM, Light LL (1981) Memory and aging: The role of retrieval processes. Psychol Bul, 90: 513-46.
  6. Cohen JD, Dunbar K, McClelland JL ve ark. (1990) On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychol Rev, 97: 332-61.
  7. DeSoto MC, Fabiani M, Geary DC ve ark. (2001) When in doubt, do it both ways: Brain evidence of the simultaneous activation of conflicting motor responses in a spatial Stroop task. J Cog Neurosci, 13: 523-36.
  8. Doehrman S, Landau R, O'Connell D ve ark. (1978) The Stroop phenomenon: Perceptual conflict or response competition? Percept Mot Skills, 47: 1127-31.
  9. Fernandez-Duque D, Baird JA, Posner MJ ve ark. (2000) Executive attention and meta-cognitive regulation. Conscious Cogn, 9: 288-307.
  10. Gaillard AWK (1988) Problems and paradigms in ERP research. Biol Psychol, 26: 91-109.
  11. Glaser WR, Glaser MO (1989) Context effects in Stroop-like word and picture processing. J Exp Psychol Gen, 118 (1): 13-42.
  12. Grapperon J, Vidal F, Leni P ve ark. (1998) [The contribution of cognitive evoked potentials to knowledge of mechanisms on the Stroop Test]. Neurophysiol Clin-Apstract, 28: 207-20.
  13. Hajcak G, Simons RF (2002) Error-related brain activity in obsessive-compulsive undergraduates. Psychiatry Res, 110: 63-72.
  14. Helmstaedter C, Kemper B, Elger CE ve ark. (1996) Neuropsychological aspects of frontal lobe epilepsy. Neuropsychologia, 34 (5): 399-406.
  15. Ilan AB, Polich J (1999) P300 and response time from a manual Stroop task. Clin Neurophysiol, 110: 367-73.
  16. Karakaş S, Erdemir C, Bekçi B ve ark. (2005) Nöropsikolojik test performansının beyindeki karşılığının beyin haritalama, olay-ilişkili potansiyel ve osilasyonlar yoluyla analizi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Araştırma Fonu Projesi (Proje No: 99K120370). Kerns JG, Cohen JD, MacDonald AW 3rd ve ark. (2004) Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments