情境控制要求决定了稳定性和灵活性是否相互抵消

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY Attention Perception & Psychophysics Pub Date : 2024-09-09 DOI:10.3758/s13414-024-02955-x
Raphael Geddert, Tobias Egner
{"title":"情境控制要求决定了稳定性和灵活性是否相互抵消","authors":"Raphael Geddert,&nbsp;Tobias Egner","doi":"10.3758/s13414-024-02955-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Cognitive stability, the ability to focus on a current task, and cognitive flexibility, the ability to switch between different tasks, are traditionally conceptualized as opposing end-points on a one-dimensional continuum. This assumption obligates a stability-flexibility trade-off – greater stability equates to less flexibility, and vice versa. In contrast, a recent cued task-switching study suggested that stability and flexibility can be regulated independently, evoking a two-dimensional perspective where trade-offs are optional (Geddert &amp; Egner, <i>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General</i>, <i>151</i>, 3009–3027, 2022). This raises the question of under what circumstances trade-offs occur. We here tested the hypothesis that trade-offs are guided by cost-of-control considerations whereby stability and flexibility trade off in contexts that selectively promote stability or flexibility, but not when neither or both are promoted. This proposal was probed by analyzing whether a trial-level metric of a stability-flexibility trade-off, an interaction between task-rule congruency and task sequence, varied as a function of a broader block-level context that independently varied demands on stability or flexibility by manipulating the proportion of incongruent and switch trials, respectively. In Experiment 1, we reanalyzed data from Geddert and Egner, <i>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General</i>, <i>151</i>, 3009–3027, (2022); Experiment 2 was a conceptual replication with a design tweak that controlled for potential confounds due to local trial history effects. The experiments produced robust evidence for independent stability and flexibility adaptation, and for a context-dependent expression of trial-level stability-flexibility trade-offs that generally conformed to the cost-of-control predictions. The current study thus documents that stability-flexibility trade-offs are not obligatory but arise in contexts where either stability or flexibility are selectively encouraged.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55433,"journal":{"name":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contextual control demands determine whether stability and flexibility trade off against each other\",\"authors\":\"Raphael Geddert,&nbsp;Tobias Egner\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13414-024-02955-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Cognitive stability, the ability to focus on a current task, and cognitive flexibility, the ability to switch between different tasks, are traditionally conceptualized as opposing end-points on a one-dimensional continuum. This assumption obligates a stability-flexibility trade-off – greater stability equates to less flexibility, and vice versa. In contrast, a recent cued task-switching study suggested that stability and flexibility can be regulated independently, evoking a two-dimensional perspective where trade-offs are optional (Geddert &amp; Egner, <i>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General</i>, <i>151</i>, 3009–3027, 2022). This raises the question of under what circumstances trade-offs occur. We here tested the hypothesis that trade-offs are guided by cost-of-control considerations whereby stability and flexibility trade off in contexts that selectively promote stability or flexibility, but not when neither or both are promoted. This proposal was probed by analyzing whether a trial-level metric of a stability-flexibility trade-off, an interaction between task-rule congruency and task sequence, varied as a function of a broader block-level context that independently varied demands on stability or flexibility by manipulating the proportion of incongruent and switch trials, respectively. In Experiment 1, we reanalyzed data from Geddert and Egner, <i>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General</i>, <i>151</i>, 3009–3027, (2022); Experiment 2 was a conceptual replication with a design tweak that controlled for potential confounds due to local trial history effects. The experiments produced robust evidence for independent stability and flexibility adaptation, and for a context-dependent expression of trial-level stability-flexibility trade-offs that generally conformed to the cost-of-control predictions. The current study thus documents that stability-flexibility trade-offs are not obligatory but arise in contexts where either stability or flexibility are selectively encouraged.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Attention Perception & Psychophysics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Attention Perception & Psychophysics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-024-02955-x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-024-02955-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

认知稳定性(专注于当前任务的能力)和认知灵活性(在不同任务之间切换的能力)在传统概念上被认为是一维连续体上的对立端点。这种假设要求对稳定性和灵活性进行权衡--稳定性越高,灵活性越低,反之亦然。与此相反,最近的一项提示任务切换研究表明,稳定性和灵活性可以独立调节,这就唤起了一种二维视角,在这种视角下,权衡是可选的(Geddert & Egner, Journal of Experimental Psychology:一般,151,3009-3027,2022)。这就提出了在什么情况下会出现权衡的问题。我们在这里测试了一个假设,即权衡是在控制成本考虑的指导下进行的,在有选择地促进稳定性或灵活性的情况下,稳定性和灵活性会发生权衡,但在两者都不促进或两者都促进的情况下,则不会发生权衡。为了验证这一观点,我们分析了稳定性和灵活性权衡的试验水平指标,即任务规则一致性和任务顺序之间的交互作用,是否会随着更广泛的区块水平情境的变化而变化,该情境通过操纵不一致试验和切换试验的比例,分别独立地改变对稳定性或灵活性的要求。在实验 1 中,我们重新分析了 Geddert 和 Egner 在《实验心理学杂志》(Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 151, 3009-3027, (2022);实验 2 是概念上的复制,对设计进行了调整,以控制局部试验历史效应可能造成的混淆。实验结果有力地证明了稳定性和灵活性的独立适应性,以及试验水平上稳定性-灵活性权衡的情境依赖性表达,总体上符合控制成本的预测。因此,当前的研究证明,稳定性-灵活性权衡并不是强制性的,而是在选择性鼓励稳定性或灵活性的情况下产生的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Contextual control demands determine whether stability and flexibility trade off against each other

Cognitive stability, the ability to focus on a current task, and cognitive flexibility, the ability to switch between different tasks, are traditionally conceptualized as opposing end-points on a one-dimensional continuum. This assumption obligates a stability-flexibility trade-off – greater stability equates to less flexibility, and vice versa. In contrast, a recent cued task-switching study suggested that stability and flexibility can be regulated independently, evoking a two-dimensional perspective where trade-offs are optional (Geddert & Egner, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151, 3009–3027, 2022). This raises the question of under what circumstances trade-offs occur. We here tested the hypothesis that trade-offs are guided by cost-of-control considerations whereby stability and flexibility trade off in contexts that selectively promote stability or flexibility, but not when neither or both are promoted. This proposal was probed by analyzing whether a trial-level metric of a stability-flexibility trade-off, an interaction between task-rule congruency and task sequence, varied as a function of a broader block-level context that independently varied demands on stability or flexibility by manipulating the proportion of incongruent and switch trials, respectively. In Experiment 1, we reanalyzed data from Geddert and Egner, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151, 3009–3027, (2022); Experiment 2 was a conceptual replication with a design tweak that controlled for potential confounds due to local trial history effects. The experiments produced robust evidence for independent stability and flexibility adaptation, and for a context-dependent expression of trial-level stability-flexibility trade-offs that generally conformed to the cost-of-control predictions. The current study thus documents that stability-flexibility trade-offs are not obligatory but arise in contexts where either stability or flexibility are selectively encouraged.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
197
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics is an official journal of the Psychonomic Society. It spans all areas of research in sensory processes, perception, attention, and psychophysics. Most articles published are reports of experimental work; the journal also presents theoretical, integrative, and evaluative reviews. Commentary on issues of importance to researchers appears in a special section of the journal. Founded in 1966 as Perception & Psychophysics, the journal assumed its present name in 2009.
期刊最新文献
Viewed touch influences tactile detection by altering decision criterion. Editorial for Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. Inhibition of return in a 3D scene depends on the direction of depth switch between cue and target. Crossmodal correspondence of elevation/pitch and size/pitch is driven by real-world features. Effect of attention on ensemble perception: Comparison between exogenous attention, endogenous attention, and depth.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1