Please wait a minute...
心理学报  2017, Vol. 49 Issue (8): 1089-1099    DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.01089
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
 选择一致性影响结果评价的ERP研究
 付艺蕾1,3;  罗跃嘉2,3;  崔 芳2
 (1成都医学院基础医学院, 成都 610500) (2深圳大学心理与社会学院, 深圳 518060) (3深圳市神经科学研究院, 深圳 518057)
 Consistency of choice modulates outcome evaluation: Evidence from ERP studies
 FU Yilei1,3; LUO Yuejia2,3; CUI Fang2
 (1 School of Basic Medical, Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu 610500, China) (2 College of Psychology and Sociology, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China) (3 Shenzhen Institute of Neuroscience, Shenzhen, 518057, China)
全文: PDF(1002 KB)   评审附件 (1 KB) 
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)       背景资料
文章导读  
摘要  本研究通过两个实验探讨了当被试主动做出与他人一致/不一致的选择行为(实验1) 或看到他人做出与自己一致/不一致的选择行为(实验2) 时, 其选择行为的一致性是如何影响结果评价过程的。脑电数据表明在结果评价的早期阶段, 无论被试是主动或被动地与他人做出相同选择, 这种选择一致性都会放大输赢结果之间的差异:体现在选择一致情况下比不一致情况下诱发更大的dFRN。而在结果评价的晚期阶段, 当被试先做出选择之后, 看到他人做出与自己不一致的选择时(实验2), 相比他人与自己选择一致时, 诱发了更大的P3和LPP 波幅。说明被试很可能把他人的不一致选择加工为一种冲突。因此投入了更多认知资源来加工这一结果。本研究是一个探索性的创新研究, 首次从时间维度上分离了选择行为和结果反馈两个阶段, 并提供了选择一致性对结果评价有影响作用的脑电证据。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
付艺蕾
罗跃嘉
崔芳
关键词  结果评价 选择一致性 事件相关电位 反馈负波 P3 LPP    
Abstract: Previous studies have shown that outcome evaluation is sensitive to social influences. However, it remains unknown whether the consistency of choice between self and others also affect the outcome evaluation. To gain more insight in this research area, we designed two experiments in the present study, in which two participants (a real participant and a confederate) completed a gambling task together. In this task, the real participant chose from two options before/after the confederate made his/her choice. The outcomes of their choices revealed after both of their choices were made. According to the choosing scenario, 2 conditions were considered in the present study for both taking the same (consistent choices) or different options (inconsistent choices). Sixteen (7 males, 20.40 ± 1.11 y) and twenty (10 males, 22.21 ± 1.70 y) healthy adults participated in the experiment 1 and 2, respectively. With normal or corrected to normal vision, none of them reported any history of neurological diseases or brain injuries. Participants were asked to perform a gambling task in collaboration with another participant. By taking turns to choose one from two covered cards, they won 50 or 0 RMB depending on their choosing consistency. In the experiment 1, the confederate chose first while in the experiment 2 the real participant chose first. After both of them made their choices and were informed with the other’s choice, the outcome were revealed, which fell in 4 categories of (i) both chose the same card and both won; (ii) both chose the same option and both lost; (iii) they chose different cards and the real participant won; and (iv) they chose different cards and the real participant lost. ERP results showed that in the early stage of outcome evaluation, no matter who chose first, a more pronounced dFRN was associated with participants taking the same option than taking different options. In the later stage of outcome evaluation, only in experiment 2, increased P3 and LPP were observed when their choices were the same than different. Our data suggests that the consistency of choices between self and other does modulate the neural activity of outcome evaluation. Specifically, in the early stage, consistent choices amplified the neural response to negative outcome as indicated by the enlarged dFRN. In the later stage, when the participant made the choice first and saw the other chose a different option, this inconsistency would trigger a sense of conflict, leading to more mental processes to avoid it later. This effect reflected in the enlarged amplitudes of P3 and LPP. Our finding provides some insights into how social context influences the psychophysiological processes of outcome evaluation.
Key words outcome evaluation    consistency of choice    ERPs    FRN    P3    LPP
收稿日期: 2016-08-22      出版日期: 2017-06-25
ZTFLH:     
  B849:C91  
  B845  
基金资助: 国家自然科学基金青年基金(31500877), 国家自然科学基金重点项目(31530031)和国家973项目课题(2014CB744603)。
通讯作者: 罗跃嘉, E-mail: luoyj@szu.edu.cn; 崔芳, E-mail: cuifang0826@gmail.com     E-mail: E-mail: luoyj@szu.edu.cn; E-mail: cuifang0826@gmail.com
引用本文:   
付艺蕾, 罗跃嘉, 崔芳.  选择一致性影响结果评价的ERP研究[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(8): 1089-1099.
FU Yilei, LUO Yuejia, CUI Fang.  Consistency of choice modulates outcome evaluation: Evidence from ERP studies. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(8): 1089-1099.
链接本文:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2017.01089      或      http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/Y2017/V49/I8/1089
[1] 王益文, 付超, 任相峰, 林羽中, 郭丰波, 张 振, 黄亮, 袁博, 郑玉玮.  自恋人格调节信任博弈的结果评价[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(8): 1080-1088.
[2] 邢强, 孙海龙, 占丹玲, 胡婧, 刘凯.  执行功能对言语顿悟问题解决的影响: 基于行为与ERPs的研究[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(7): 909-919.
[3] 程家萍;罗跃嘉;崔芳. 认知负荷对疼痛共情的影响:来自ERP研究的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(5): 622-630.
[4] 范伟;钟毅平;杨子鹿;李琎;欧阳益; 蔡荣华; 李慧云 ;傅小兰 . 外倾个体的自我参照加工程度效应[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(8): 1002-1012.
[5] 宋娟; 郭丰波; 张振; 原胜; 金花; 王益文. 人际距离影响疼痛共情:朋友启动效应[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(7): 833-844.
[6] 徐菊;胡媛艳;王双; 李艾苏;张明;张阳. 返回抑制训练效应的认知神经机制 ——来自ERP研究的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(6): 658-670.
[7] 贾磊;张常洁;张庆林. 情绪性注意瞬脱的认知机制:来自行为与ERP的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(2): 174-184.
[8] 李婧; 陈安涛;陈杰;龙长权. 词语型类别属性归纳中分类与属性推理过程的时间特征[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(11): 1410-1422.
[9] 钟毅平;李琎;占友龙;范伟;杨子鹿. 自我旋转面孔识别的ERPs研究[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(11): 1379-1389.
[10] 王益文;张振;原胜;郭丰波;何少颖;敬一鸣. 重复信任博弈的决策过程与结果评价[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(8): 1028-1038.
[11] 张丹丹;赵婷;柳昀哲;陈玉明. 恐惧情绪面孔和身体姿势加工的比较:事件相关电位研究[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(8): 963-970.
[12] 高雪梅;翁蕾;周群;赵偲;李芳. 暴力犯的疼痛共情更低:来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(4): 478-487.
[13] 杨亚平;徐强;张林;邓培状;梁宁建. 场景的不同空间频率信息对面部表情加工的影响:来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(12): 1433-1444.
[14] 王瑛瑛;梁九清;郭春彦. 单字法定向遗忘中情绪指示符对记忆编码过程的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(6): 740-753.
[15] 窦伟伟;郑希付;杨慧芳;王俊芳;李悦;俄小天;陈倩倩. 认知分心的强度对创伤性信息加工的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(5): 656-665.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《心理学报》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn