社会性信息对Flanker效应的影响
|
摘要
Flanker效应指分心刺激与靶刺激同时呈现时,分心刺激干扰靶刺激加工的现象。但该现象在面孔Flanker任务中会消失。本研究在ANT-I范式中增加面孔(Face-Face-Face,FFF)及混合Flanker任务(Face-Arrow-Face,FAF;Arrow-Face-Arrow,AFA)以探究其原因。结果发现,箭头为分心刺激时,Flanker效应存在;而携带较多社会性信息的面孔为分心刺激时,Flanker效应则消失。说明分心刺激的社会性可能是造成该Flanker效应消失的原因。这为冲突信息加工中社会性与非社会性信息的抑制机制提供了一定的理论视角。
Faces carry abundant social information and are more attention-captive than other objects. Previous research has found that social faces can facilitate attentional orienting and executive control but reduce the efficiency of alerting(Federico, Marotta, Adriani, Maccari, & Casagrande, 2013). In addition, researchers have also found that side-gazing faces can interfere the classic Flanker effect: people respond faster when presented with congruent arrows(i.e., arrows pointing the same direction) than when presented with incongruent arrows(among which the middle arrow and the side arrows are contrarily oriented); This effect, however, disappears when the stimuli are changed from arrows to side-gazing faces. Although this phenomenon has been recognized repeatedly(Federico, Marotta, Martella, & Casagrande, 2016), its underlying mechanisms are still under discussion. Federico et al.(2013) argued the sociality of faces — social faces occupied more attention resources than arrows — to be its main cause. However, this explanation might be weakened by the fact that the two social side-gazing faces at side might track attention as well. Thus far, little research has studied the effect of side-gazing faces on the classic Flanker effect and, as a result, little is known about what drives this effect. In the current research, we aim to expand the research on the effect of side-gazing faces on attention, by studying why side-gazing faces can affect the classic Flanker effect.The present study employs the ANT-I(attention network test-interactions) paradigm to measure the three attention networks: alerting, orienting and executive control. Both the classic arrow Flanker stimuli(Arrow-Arrow-Arrow, AAA) and the face Flanker task(Face-Face-Face, FFF) are used to examine the influence of social faces on attention. To examine the executive control of social information, two new mixed Flanker tasks are used. In the first task, the central side-gazing faces is the target stimuli and it is flanked by congruent or incongruent arrows(Arrow-Face-Arrow, AFA); Whereas in the second task, the central arrow are used as target stimuli and flanked by congruent or incongruent side-gazing faces(Face-Arrow-Face, FAF). We hypothesize that if the classic Flanker effect disappears in both the FAF and the FFF conditions, the presence of the central side-gazing faces shall not cause the disappearance of the Flank effect in the FFF condition. Likewise, if the Flanker effect is gone in both the AFA and the FFF conditions, the appearance of the central side-gazing faces cannot explain why the Flank effect disappears. The experimental procedure is based on and similar to the procedure used in the study of Callejas, Lupiá?ez, Funes, and Tudela(2004).A two(alerting: sounds vs. no sounds) × two(orienting: right vs. wrong) × two(executive control: congruent vs. incongruent) × four(Flanker type: AAA, FFF, AFA, & FAF) repeated-measures ANOVA is performed on reaction time. The results show no significant interaction between alerting and Flanker type, and between orienting and Flanker type, indicating that social faces do not influence alerting and orienting. The results also reveal a significant interaction between executive control and Flanker type. The simple-effect analysis shows that when arrows are the disturbing stimuli(AAA and AFA), the Flanker effect appears; However, when side-gazing faces are the disturbing stimuli(FFF and FAF), the Flanker effect disappears. This suggests that the sociality of the disturbing stimuli may explain the disappearance of the Flanker effect described above.As far as we know, our research is the first to employ a mixed Flanker task. It not only extends the social information to be used in the ANT-I paradigm, but also helps discover the role of side-gazing faces in the disappearance of the Flanker effect. Our research provides empirical evidence for, and makes theoretical contribution to the processing of social and nonsocial information as well as its underlying mechanisms.
Faces carry abundant social information and are more attention-captive than other objects. Previous research has found that social faces can facilitate attentional orienting and executive control but reduce the efficiency of alerting(Federico, Marotta, Adriani, Maccari, & Casagrande, 2013). In addition, researchers have also found that side-gazing faces can interfere the classic Flanker effect: people respond faster when presented with congruent arrows(i.e., arrows pointing the same direction) than when presented with incongruent arrows(among which the middle arrow and the side arrows are contrarily oriented); This effect, however, disappears when the stimuli are changed from arrows to side-gazing faces. Although this phenomenon has been recognized repeatedly(Federico, Marotta, Martella, & Casagrande, 2016), its underlying mechanisms are still under discussion. Federico et al.(2013) argued the sociality of faces — social faces occupied more attention resources than arrows — to be its main cause. However, this explanation might be weakened by the fact that the two social side-gazing faces at side might track attention as well. Thus far, little research has studied the effect of side-gazing faces on the classic Flanker effect and, as a result, little is known about what drives this effect. In the current research, we aim to expand the research on the effect of side-gazing faces on attention, by studying why side-gazing faces can affect the classic Flanker effect.The present study employs the ANT-I(attention network test-interactions) paradigm to measure the three attention networks: alerting, orienting and executive control. Both the classic arrow Flanker stimuli(Arrow-Arrow-Arrow, AAA) and the face Flanker task(Face-Face-Face, FFF) are used to examine the influence of social faces on attention. To examine the executive control of social information, two new mixed Flanker tasks are used. In the first task, the central side-gazing faces is the target stimuli and it is flanked by congruent or incongruent arrows(Arrow-Face-Arrow, AFA); Whereas in the second task, the central arrow are used as target stimuli and flanked by congruent or incongruent side-gazing faces(Face-Arrow-Face, FAF). We hypothesize that if the classic Flanker effect disappears in both the FAF and the FFF conditions, the presence of the central side-gazing faces shall not cause the disappearance of the Flank effect in the FFF condition. Likewise, if the Flanker effect is gone in both the AFA and the FFF conditions, the appearance of the central side-gazing faces cannot explain why the Flank effect disappears. The experimental procedure is based on and similar to the procedure used in the study of Callejas, Lupiá?ez, Funes, and Tudela(2004).A two(alerting: sounds vs. no sounds) × two(orienting: right vs. wrong) × two(executive control: congruent vs. incongruent) × four(Flanker type: AAA, FFF, AFA, & FAF) repeated-measures ANOVA is performed on reaction time. The results show no significant interaction between alerting and Flanker type, and between orienting and Flanker type, indicating that social faces do not influence alerting and orienting. The results also reveal a significant interaction between executive control and Flanker type. The simple-effect analysis shows that when arrows are the disturbing stimuli(AAA and AFA), the Flanker effect appears; However, when side-gazing faces are the disturbing stimuli(FFF and FAF), the Flanker effect disappears. This suggests that the sociality of the disturbing stimuli may explain the disappearance of the Flanker effect described above.As far as we know, our research is the first to employ a mixed Flanker task. It not only extends the social information to be used in the ANT-I paradigm, but also helps discover the role of side-gazing faces in the disappearance of the Flanker effect. Our research provides empirical evidence for, and makes theoretical contribution to the processing of social and nonsocial information as well as its underlying mechanisms.
引文
龚栩,黄宇霞,王妍,罗跃嘉.(2011).中国面孔表情图片系统的修订.中国心理卫生杂志,25(1),40-46.
Berchio,C.,Rihs,T.A.,Piguet,C.,Dayer,A.G.,Aubry,J.M.,&Michel,C.M.(2016).Early averted gaze processing in the right Fusiform Gyrus:An EEGsource imaging study.Biological Psychology,119,156-170.
Callejas,A.,Lupiá?ez,J.,&Tudela,P.(2004).The three attentional networks:On their independence and interactions.Brain and Cognition,54(3),225-227.
Cohen,N.,Henik,A.,&Mor,N.(2011).Can emotion modulate attention?Evidence for reciprocal links in the attentional network test.Experimental Psychology,58(3),171-179.
Dichter,G.S.,&Belger,A.(2007).Social stimuli interfere with cognitive control in autism.Neuro Image,35(3),1219-1230.
Engell,A.D.,Nummenmaa,L.,Oosterhof,N.N.,Henson,R.N.,Haxby,J.V.,&Calder,A.J.(2010).Differential activation of frontoparietal attention networks by social and symbolic spatial cues.Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,5(4),432-440.
Eriksen,B.A.,&Eriksen,C.W.(1974).Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception and Psychophysics,16(1),143-149.
Fan,J.,McCandliss,B.D.,Fossella,J.,Flombaum,J.I.,&Posner,M.I.(2005).The activation of attentional networks.Neuro Image,26(2),471-479.
Fan,J.,McCandliss,B.D.,Sommer,T.,Raz,A.,&Posner,M.I.(2002).Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,14(3),340-347.
Federico,F.,Marotta,A.,Adriani,T.,Maccari,L.,&Casagrande,M.(2013).Attention network test-The impact of social information on executive control,alerting and orienting.Acta Psychologica,143(1),65-70.
Federico,F.,Marotta,A.,Martella,D.,&Casagrande,M.(2017).Development in attention functions and social processing:Evidence from the attention network test.British Journal of Developmental Psychology,35(2),169-185.
Finucane,A.M.,Whiteman,M.C.,&Power,M.J.(2010).The effect of happiness and sadness on alerting,orienting,and executive attention.Journal of Attention Disorders,13(6),629-639.
Ishigami,Y.,Eskes,G.A.,Tyndall,A.V.,Longman,R.S.,Drogos,L.L.,&Poulin,M.J.(2016).The attention network test-interaction(ANT-I):Reliability and validity in healthy older adults.Experimental Brain Research,234(3),815-827.
Joseph,R.M.,Fricker,Z.,&Keehn,B.(2015).Activation of frontoparietal attention networks by non-predictive gaze and arrow cues.Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,10(2),294-301.
Kwon,M.K.,Setoodehnia,M.,Baek,J.,Luck,S.J.,&Oakes,L.M.(2016).The development of visual search in infancy:Attention to faces versus salience.Developmental Psychology,52(4),537-555.
Marotta,A.,Lupiá?ez,J.,&Casagrande,M.(2012).Investigating hemispheric lateralization of reflexive attention to gaze and arrow cues.Brain and Cognition,80(3),361-366.
Marotta,A.,Casagrande,M.,&Lupiá?ez,J.(2013).Object-based attentional effects in response to eye-gaze and arrow cues.Acta Psychologica,143(3),317-321.
Marotta,A.,Martella,D.,Maccari,L.,Sebastiani,M.,&Casagrande,M.(2014).Poor vigilance affects attentional orienting triggered by central uninformative gaze and arrow cues.Cognitive Processing,15(4),503-513.
Posner,M.I.,Sheese,B.E.,Odluda?,Y.,&Tang,Y.Y.(2006).Analyzing and shaping human attentional networks.Neural Networks,19(9),1422-1429.
Sato,S.,&Kawahara,J.I.(2015).Attentional capture by completely taskirrelevant faces.Psychological Research,79(4),523-533.
Siemann,J.,Herrmann,M.,&Galashan,D.(2018).The effect of feature-based attention on flanker interference processing:An fMRI-constrained source analysis.Scientific Reports,8,1580.
Simpson,E.A.,Husband,H.L.,Yee,K.,Fullerton,A.,&Jakobsen,K.V.(2014).Visual search efficiency is greater for human faces compared to animal faces.Experimental Psychology,61(6),439-456.
Spagna,A.,Martella,D.,Sebastiani,M.,Maccari,L.,Marotta,A.,&Casagrande,M.(2014).Efficiency and interactions of alerting,orienting and executive networks:The impact of imperative stimulus type.Acta Psychologica,148(3),209-215.
Valenza,E.,Otsuka,Y.,Bulf,H.,Ichikawa,H.,Kanazawa,S.,&Yamaguchi,M.K.(2015).Face orientation and motion differently affect the deployment of visual attention in newborns and 4-Month-Old infants.PLo S ONE,10(9),e0136965.
Xie,L.F.,Ren,M.F.,Cao,B.H.,&Li,F.H.(2017).Distinct brain responses to different inhibitions:Evidence from a modified flanker task.Scientific Reports,7,6657.
Berchio,C.,Rihs,T.A.,Piguet,C.,Dayer,A.G.,Aubry,J.M.,&Michel,C.M.(2016).Early averted gaze processing in the right Fusiform Gyrus:An EEGsource imaging study.Biological Psychology,119,156-170.
Callejas,A.,Lupiá?ez,J.,&Tudela,P.(2004).The three attentional networks:On their independence and interactions.Brain and Cognition,54(3),225-227.
Cohen,N.,Henik,A.,&Mor,N.(2011).Can emotion modulate attention?Evidence for reciprocal links in the attentional network test.Experimental Psychology,58(3),171-179.
Dichter,G.S.,&Belger,A.(2007).Social stimuli interfere with cognitive control in autism.Neuro Image,35(3),1219-1230.
Engell,A.D.,Nummenmaa,L.,Oosterhof,N.N.,Henson,R.N.,Haxby,J.V.,&Calder,A.J.(2010).Differential activation of frontoparietal attention networks by social and symbolic spatial cues.Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,5(4),432-440.
Eriksen,B.A.,&Eriksen,C.W.(1974).Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception and Psychophysics,16(1),143-149.
Fan,J.,McCandliss,B.D.,Fossella,J.,Flombaum,J.I.,&Posner,M.I.(2005).The activation of attentional networks.Neuro Image,26(2),471-479.
Fan,J.,McCandliss,B.D.,Sommer,T.,Raz,A.,&Posner,M.I.(2002).Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,14(3),340-347.
Federico,F.,Marotta,A.,Adriani,T.,Maccari,L.,&Casagrande,M.(2013).Attention network test-The impact of social information on executive control,alerting and orienting.Acta Psychologica,143(1),65-70.
Federico,F.,Marotta,A.,Martella,D.,&Casagrande,M.(2017).Development in attention functions and social processing:Evidence from the attention network test.British Journal of Developmental Psychology,35(2),169-185.
Finucane,A.M.,Whiteman,M.C.,&Power,M.J.(2010).The effect of happiness and sadness on alerting,orienting,and executive attention.Journal of Attention Disorders,13(6),629-639.
Ishigami,Y.,Eskes,G.A.,Tyndall,A.V.,Longman,R.S.,Drogos,L.L.,&Poulin,M.J.(2016).The attention network test-interaction(ANT-I):Reliability and validity in healthy older adults.Experimental Brain Research,234(3),815-827.
Joseph,R.M.,Fricker,Z.,&Keehn,B.(2015).Activation of frontoparietal attention networks by non-predictive gaze and arrow cues.Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience,10(2),294-301.
Kwon,M.K.,Setoodehnia,M.,Baek,J.,Luck,S.J.,&Oakes,L.M.(2016).The development of visual search in infancy:Attention to faces versus salience.Developmental Psychology,52(4),537-555.
Marotta,A.,Lupiá?ez,J.,&Casagrande,M.(2012).Investigating hemispheric lateralization of reflexive attention to gaze and arrow cues.Brain and Cognition,80(3),361-366.
Marotta,A.,Casagrande,M.,&Lupiá?ez,J.(2013).Object-based attentional effects in response to eye-gaze and arrow cues.Acta Psychologica,143(3),317-321.
Marotta,A.,Martella,D.,Maccari,L.,Sebastiani,M.,&Casagrande,M.(2014).Poor vigilance affects attentional orienting triggered by central uninformative gaze and arrow cues.Cognitive Processing,15(4),503-513.
Posner,M.I.,Sheese,B.E.,Odluda?,Y.,&Tang,Y.Y.(2006).Analyzing and shaping human attentional networks.Neural Networks,19(9),1422-1429.
Sato,S.,&Kawahara,J.I.(2015).Attentional capture by completely taskirrelevant faces.Psychological Research,79(4),523-533.
Siemann,J.,Herrmann,M.,&Galashan,D.(2018).The effect of feature-based attention on flanker interference processing:An fMRI-constrained source analysis.Scientific Reports,8,1580.
Simpson,E.A.,Husband,H.L.,Yee,K.,Fullerton,A.,&Jakobsen,K.V.(2014).Visual search efficiency is greater for human faces compared to animal faces.Experimental Psychology,61(6),439-456.
Spagna,A.,Martella,D.,Sebastiani,M.,Maccari,L.,Marotta,A.,&Casagrande,M.(2014).Efficiency and interactions of alerting,orienting and executive networks:The impact of imperative stimulus type.Acta Psychologica,148(3),209-215.
Valenza,E.,Otsuka,Y.,Bulf,H.,Ichikawa,H.,Kanazawa,S.,&Yamaguchi,M.K.(2015).Face orientation and motion differently affect the deployment of visual attention in newborns and 4-Month-Old infants.PLo S ONE,10(9),e0136965.
Xie,L.F.,Ren,M.F.,Cao,B.H.,&Li,F.H.(2017).Distinct brain responses to different inhibitions:Evidence from a modified flanker task.Scientific Reports,7,6657.