摘要
已有的研究证明3岁儿童在反转强化联结任务中存在困难,许多研究认为困难是由于儿童无法抑制优势反应(源于优势的任务反应模式、有吸引力的刺激物或者倾向于选择非空的位置、等)导致的,也有研究认为是由于儿童无法推理出任务规则而引起的。本研究在总结前人研究的基础上认为有吸引力的客体很可能诱发儿童的优势反应,造成儿童在任务上的失败。因此,本研究采用窗口任务作为反转强化联结任务的典型代表,将其划分为标准窗口任务和去除(源于客体的)优势反应窗口任务,与Carroll, Apperly和Riggs (2007)[1]的转换式操作相结合,探讨儿童在反转强化联结任务上困难的本质原因。本研究包括三个实验。实验一采用标准窗口任务和去除优势反应的窗口任务,以及与Carroll等人(2007)转换式操作相结合的混合条件,探讨(1)去除源于客体的优势反应是否会影响3岁儿童在窗口任务中的表现,(2)如果存在影响,这种影响的本质是与规则推理相关还是与抑制能力相关。实验二使用反向混合条件,和实验一的标准窗口任务、混合条件相比较,考察转换式操作范式是否存在导致儿童对转换前规则产生固着的弊端。根据实验二的结果,实验三设置了短期学习条件,与标准学习条件相比较,探讨能够依据抑制理论来改进和完善转换式操作。在本研究条件下得出以下结论：
(1)儿童在去除优势反应窗口任务上的表现显著优于标准窗口任务,表明源于客体吸引力的优势反应确实会造成儿童在反转强化联结任务上的困难,降低或者去除这种优势反应能够显著提高儿童在此类任务上的成绩；
(2)3岁儿童在反转强化联结任务上的困难是规则推理还是抑制能力,这个问题的答案无法通过转换式操作范式来获得,因为这种操作范式本身会导致儿童对最先接触到的规则产生固着,所收集到的不是真实有效的数据,因此无法对优势反应的本质进行探讨。
(3)不能依据抑制理论对转换式操作范式进行修正,因为转换前规则的学习期长短并不能引起儿童在转换后规则运用上的成绩变化。只有寻找更好的范式或者能够对转换式造作范式进行真正有效的改进,才能够对儿童困难的本质做出客观的结论。
It has been proved that 3-year-old children have difficulties in reverse-reward contingency task. Several researches declared that children's difficulties lies in their insufficient abilities to inhibit prepotent responses while some others reckoned that children's failures was caused by their inability to refer the task rule. Concluding the previous researches, we considered that it was the object which children desired that probably evoked children's prepotent responses, resulting in kids'failures on the task. Therefore, in current study, we employed window task as typical representative of reverse-reward contingency task and classified it into two categories, that is, standard window task and prepotency-eliminated window task. Combined with transfer manipulation invented by Carroll, Apperly & Riggs (2007)[1], we aimed to investigate the core reason of 3-year-olds'difficulties in reverse-reward contingency task.
Three experiments were contained in our study. Experiment 1 was consist of standard window task, prepotency-eliminated window task and mixed window task in which transfer manipulation made by Carroll, et al. (2007)[1] was included. Exp.l aimed to explore (1) whether eliminating prepotency could significantly impact on 3-year-olds'performances on window task, (2) and what essence lay in prepotency elimination if such manipulation worked, rule reasoning or inhibitory ability. Experiment 2 employed reverse-mixed window task associated with standard and mixed window task in Exp.1, investigating whether transfer manipulation might result in inaccurate data due to its potential disadvantages which probably lead to children's confusion in task rules. Based on the result of Exp.2, short-study-term and standard-study-term versions of window task banded together in Experiment 3, the purpose of which was to discuss whether the shortages of transfer manipulation could be conquered according to inhibition account. Conclusions were suggested as follows:
(1) 3-year-olds'achievements in prepotency-eliminated window task were obviously better than those in standard window task, indicating that prepotent responses induced by what children desired did result in children's failures in reverse-reward contingency task. Decreasing or eliminating such prepotency could improve children's performances on the similar types of tasks.
(2) Transfer manipulation could not be used to explore whether 3-year-olds'difficulties in reverse-reward contingency task were related to rule reasoning or inhibitory ability, because such paradigm itself contained possibilities leading to children's confusion in task rules. The data collected through such paradigm were therefore probably incorrect and could not be used in prospective researches.
(3) Original transfer manipulation could not be modified and developed based on inhibition account, because children's performances kept almost unaltered no matter how long they studied the former rules. It was suggested that only did we seek more effective paradigms or some methods that virtually worked for manipulation improvement could we make true conclusions
引文
[1]Carroll D J, Apperly I A, Riggs K J. Choosing between two objects reduces 3-year-olds'errors on a reverse-contingency test of executive function. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2007,98:184-192
[2]Zelazo P D, Muller U. Executive function in typical and atypical development. In:Goswami U ed. Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development. Oxford:Blackwell,2002.445-469
[3]Dibbets P, Jolles J. The Switch Task for Children:Measuring mental flexibility in young children. Cognitive Development,2006,21(1):60-71
[4]Hongwanishkul D, Happaney K R, Lee W S C, Zelazo P D. Assessment of Hot and Cool Executive Function in Young Children:Age-Related Changes and Individual Differences. Developmental Neuropsychology,2005,28(2):617-644
[5]Allain P, Nicoleau S, Pinon K, Etcharry-Bouyx F, Barre J, Berrut G, Dubas F, Le Gall D. Executive functioning in normal aging:A study of action planning using the Zoo Map Test. Brain and Cognition,2005,57(1):4-7
[6]Sorel O, Pennequin V. Aging of the Planning process:The role of executive functioning. Brain and Cognition,2008,66(2):196-201
[7]Simpson A, Riggs K J. Inhibitory and working memory demands of the day-night task in children. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology,2005,23:471-486
[8]Wolfe C D, Bell M A. The integration of cognition and emotion during infancy and early childhood:Regulatory processes associated with the development of working memory. Brain and Cognition,2007,65:3-13
[9]Berwid O G, Kera E C, Marks D J, Santra A, Bender H A, Halperin J M. Sustained attention and response inhibition in young children at risk for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,2005,46:1219-1229
[10]Castellanos F X, Sonuga-Barke E J S, Milham M P, Tannock R. Characterizing cognition in ADHD:beyond executive dysfunction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,2006,10(3):117-123
[11]Rhoades B L, Greenberg M T, Domitrovich C E. The contribution of inhibitory control to preschoolers'social-emotional competence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2009,30(3):310-320
[12]Best J R, Miller P H, Jones L L. Executive functions after age 5:Changes and correlates. Developmental Review,2009,29:180-200
[13]Hill E L. Evaluating the theory of executive dysfunction in autism. Developmental Review, 2004,24:189-233
[14]Ames C, Fletcher-Watson S. A review of methods in the study of attention in autism. Developmental Review,2010,30(1):52-73
[15]Zelazo P D, Craik F I M, Booth L. Executive function across the life span. Acta Psychologica, 2004,115:167-183
[16]Liebermann D, Giesbrecht G F, Muller U. Cognitive and emotional aspects of self-regulation in preschoolers. Cognitive Development,2007,22:511-529
[17]Simpson A, Riggs K J. Conditions under which children experience inhibitory difficulty with a "button-press" go/no-go task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,2006,94:18-26
[18]Miiller U, Zelazo P D, Hood S, Leone T, Rohrer L. Interference Control in a New Rule Use Task:Age-Related Changes, Labeling, and Attention. Child Development,2004,75(5): 1594-1609
[19]McCabe D P, Roediger III H L, McDaniel M A, Balota D A, Hambrick D Z. The Relationship Between Working Memory Capacity and Executive Functioning:Evidence for a Common Executive Attention Construct. Neuropsychology,2010,24(2):222-243
[20]Zelazo P D, Frye D, Rapus T. An age-related dissociation between knowing rules and using them. Cognitive Development,1996,11:37-63
[21]Towse J N, Lewis C, Knowles M. When knowledge is not enough:The phenomenon of goal neglect in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,2007,96:320-332
[22]Perner J, Lang B. What causes 3-year-olds' difficulty on the dimensional change card sorting task? Infant and Child Development,2002,11(2):93-105
[23]Zelazo P D, Cunningham W A. Executive function:Mechanisms underlying emotion regulation. In:Gross J J ed. Handbook of emotion regulation. New York:Guilford,2007. 135-158
[24]Carlson S M, Wang T S. Inhibitory control and emotion regulation in preschool children. Cognitive Development,2007,22:489-510
[25]Lewis M D, Stieben J. Emotion regulation in the brain:Conceptural issues and directions for developmental research. Child Development,2004,75(2):371-376
[26]Hare T A, Tottenham N, Galvan A, Voss H U, Glover G H, Casey B J. Biological substrates of emotional reacticity and regulation in adolescence during an emotional Go-Nogo task. Biological Psychiatry,2008,63:927-934
[27]Todd R M, Lewis M D, Meusel L-A, Zelazo P D. The time course of social-emotional processing in early childhood:ERP responses to facial affect and personal familiarity in a Go-Nogo task. Neuropsychologia,2008,46:595-613
[28]Qu L, Zelazo P D. The facilitative effect of positive stimuli on 3-year-olds'flexible rule use. Cognitive Development,2007,22:456-473
[29]Carlson S M, Davis A C, Leach J G. Less is more-executive function and symbolic representation in preschool children. Psychological Science,2005,16(8):609-616
[30]Russell J, Mauthner N, Sharpe S, Tidswell T. The windows task as a measure of strategic deception in preschoolers and autistic subjects. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 1991,9:331-349
[31]Carlson S M, Moses L J, Hix H R. The role of inhibitory processes in young children's difficulties with deception and false belief. Child Development,1998,69(3):672-691
[32]Couillard N L, Woodward A L. Children's comprehension of deceptive points. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,1999,17:515-521
[33]Murray E A, Kralik J D, Wise S P. Learning to inhibit prepotent responses:successful performance by rhesus macaques, Macaca mulatta,on the reversed-contingency task. Animal Behavior,2005,69:991-998
[34]Kralik J D, Hauser M D, Zimlicki R. The Relationship Between Problem Solving and Inhibitory Control:Cotton-Top Tamarin (Saguinus oedipus) Performance on a Reversed Contingency Task. Journal of Comparative Psychology,2002,116(1):39-50
[35]Albiach-Serrano A, Guillen-Salazar F, Call J. Mangabeys (Cercocebus torquatus lunulatus) solve the reverse contingency task without a modi Wed procedure. Animal Cognition,2007,10: 387-396
[36]Hala S, Russell J. Executive control within strategic deception:A window on early cognitive development? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,2001,80(2):112-141
[37]Russell J, Hala S, Hill E. The automated windows task:the performance of preschool children, children with autism, and children with moderate learning difficulties. Cognitive Development, 2003,18:111-137
[38]Simpson A, Riggs K J, Simon M. What makes the windows task difficult for young children: Rule inference or rule use? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,2004,87(2):155-170
[39]Carroll D J, Apperly I A, Riggs K J. The executive demands of strategic reasoning are modified by the way in which children are prompted to think about the task:Evidence from 3-to 4-year-olds. Cognitive Development,2007,22:142-148
[40]张莉.学前儿童在窗口任务中困难原因的研究：硕士学位论文.重庆：西南大学,2007.6～7
[41]Hauser M D. Perseveration, inhibition and the prefrontal cortex:a new look. Current Opinion in Neurobiology,1999,9:214-222
[42]Eidels A, Townsend J T, Algom D. Comparing perception of Stroop stimuli in focused versus divided attention paradigms:Evidence for dramatic processing differences. Cognition,2010, 114(2):129-150
[43]Szucs D, Soltesz F. Stimulus and response conflict in the color-word Stroop task:A combined electro-myography and event-related potential study. Brain Research,2010,1325:63-76
[44]Bruchmann M, Herper K, Konrad C, Pantev C, Huster R J. Individualized EEG source reconstruction of Stroop interference with masked color words. Neurolmage,2010,49(2): 1800-1809
[45]Conty L, Gimmig D, Belletier C, George N, Huguet P. The cost of being watched:Stroop interference increases under concomitant eye contact. Cognition,2010, 115(1):133-139
[46]Verbruggen F, Liefooghe B, Vandierendonck A. The interaction between stop signal inhibition and distractor interference in the flanker and Stroop task. Acta Psychologica,2004,16(1): 21-37
[47]Wendt M, Luna-Rodriguez A. Conflict-Frequency Affects Flanker Interference:Role of Stimulus-Ensemble-Specific Practice and Flanker-Response Contingencies. Experimental Psychology,2009,56(3):206-217
[48]Salthouse T A. Is flanker-based inhibition related to age? Identifying specific influences of individual differences on neurocognitive variables. Brain and Cognition, in press.
[49]Kloo D, Perner J, Kerschhuber A, Dabernig S, Aichhorn M. Sorting between dimensions: Conditions of cognitive flexibility in preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2008,100:115-134
[50]Marcovitch S, Zelazo P D. The effect of number of pre-switch trials on 2-year-olds' perseveration in a multi-step multi-location search task. Infant Behavior and Development, 1996,19:601
[51]Jacques S, Zelazo P D, Kirkham N Z, Semcesen T K. Rule Selection Versus Rule Execution in Preschoolers:An Error-Detection Approach. Developmental Psychology,1999,35(3): 770-780