刺激相似性对跨通道冲突中感觉主导效应的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2026.0571

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 认知加工水平假说认为跨通道冲突中的感觉主导效应存在反应前水平的视觉主导效应以及反应水平的听觉主导效应, 但刺激在不同加工水平中的表征方式如何影响这一效应目前仍不清楚。研究采用2-1映射(2-1 mapping)范式, 将视听通道一致性条件分为一致、反应前不一致和反应不一致三种条件, 考察刺激相似性对反应前水平和反应水平跨通道冲突感觉主导效应的影响。实验1结果发现, 不相似条件在反应前水平的跨通道冲突表现为视觉主导效应、反应水平的跨通道冲突表现为听觉主导效应; 视觉相似条件显著减小了反应前水平的视觉主导效应和反应水平的听觉主导效应; 听觉相似条件显著增大了反应前水平的视觉主导效应。实验2采用经颅电刺激分别对左侧梭状回(实验2a)和左侧顶下小叶(实验2b)进行神经调控, 因果性地验证刺激相似性如何影响跨通道冲突中感觉主导效应。实验2a结果发现, 阳极刺激导致反应前水平的视觉主导效应减小; 实验2b结果发现, 阳极刺激导致反应前水平的视觉主导效应增大。研究表明, 刺激相似性能够影响跨通道冲突中的感觉主导效应, 视觉相似和听觉相似对反应前水平的感觉主导效应起到调控作用, 完善了认知加工假说对跨通道冲突感觉主导效应的解释。

关键词: 跨通道冲突, 感觉主导效应, 刺激相似性, 认知控制

Abstract: The levels-of-processing framework posits that cross-modal conflicts demonstrate modality-specific dominance patterns, with visual superiority seen at pre-response stages and auditory dominance seen at response stages. However, prior studies have not systematically examined how representational modalities of stimuli during cognitive processing modulate these sensory dominance effects. Given that stimulus similarity influences processing efficiency and conflict magnitude, the present study aimed to examine how stimulus similarity influences sensory dominance effects at both the pre-response and response levels.
Experiment 1 (N = 34) adopted a 2-1 mapping paradigm to categorize audiovisual congruency conditions into congruent, pre-response incongruent, and response incongruent conditions to investigate how stimulus similarity influences sensory dominance effects at both the pre-response and response levels. Experiment 2 utilized transcranial electrical stimulation to neuromodulate the left fusiform gyrus (Experiment 2a: N = 26) and left inferior parietal lobule (Experiment 2b: N = 24), causally verifying how stimulus similarity regulates sensory dominance in cross-modal conflicts. In addition to reaction times, the congruency effect index was used to measure the processing level of cross-modal conflicts, and the sensory dominance effect index was used to quantify differences in conflict across different cognitive processing stages.
Experiment 1 revealed that visual dominance emerged during pre-response cross-modal conflicts, whereas auditory dominance manifested at the response level. In addition, visual similarity significantly reduced both visual dominance at the pre-response level and auditory dominance at the response level, whereas auditory similarity markedly enhanced visual dominance at the pre-response level. More importantly, Experiment 2 revealed that the effect of visual similarity on the sensory dominance effect in the pre-response stage was related to the left fusiform gyrus. Electrical stimulation of the left fusiform gyrus decreased the visual dominance effect at the pre-response level. The effect of increased auditory similarity at the pre-response level was related to the left inferior parietal lobule, and the visual dominance effect at the pre-response level was increased by anodal electrical stimulation of the left inferior parietal lobule.
These findings reveal that stimulus similarity modulates sensory dominance in cross-modal conflicts, with visual and auditory similarity differentially regulating sensory dominance effects at the preresponse level. This study provides novel insights into cross-modal conflict mechanisms across different cognitive processing stages and enhances the understanding of the sensory dominance effect in cross-modal conflicts.

Key words: cross-modal conflict, sensory dominance effect, cognitive control, stimulus similarity

王爱君, 黄杰, 赵丹娜, 李欣, 张明. (2026). 刺激相似性对跨通道冲突中感觉主导效应的影响. 心理学报, 58(4), 571-589.

WANG Aijun, HUANG Jie, ZHAO Danna, LI Xin, ZHANG Ming. (2026). Stimulus similarity modulates sensory dominance effects in cross-modal conflicts. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 58(4), 571-589.

参考文献

[1] Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2009). Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review.Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(5), 713-734.
[2] Ashby, F. G., & Ell, S. W. (2001). The neurobiology of human category learning.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(5), 204-210.
[3] Boggio P. S., Zaghi S., & Fregni F. (2009). Modulation of emotions associated with images of human pain using anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS).Neuropsychologia, 47(1), 212-217.
[4] Booth J. R., Burman D. D., Meyer J. R., Gitelman D. R., Parrish T. B., & Mesulam M. M. (2002). Functional anatomy of intra-and cross-modal lexical tasks.NeuroImage, 16(1), 7-22.
[5] Bosworth R. G., Binder E. M., Tyler S. C., & Morford J. P. (2021). Automaticity of lexical access in deaf and hearing bilinguals: Cross-linguistic evidence from the color Stroop task across five languages.Cognition, 212, 104659.
[6] Breining B., Nozari N., & Rapp B. (2016). Does segmental overlap help or hurt? Evidence from blocked cyclic naming in spoken and written production.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(2), 500-506.
[7] Cao F., Lee R., Shu H., Yang Y., Xu G., Li K., & Booth J. R. (2010). Cultural constraints on brain development: Evidence from a developmental study of visual word processing in mandarin Chinese.Cerebral Cortex, 20(5), 1223-1233.
[8] Chen, Q., & Zhou, X. L. (2013). Vision dominates at the pre-response level and audition dominates at the response level in cross-modal interaction: Behavioral and neural evidence.The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(17), 7109-7121.
[9] Chikazoe J., Jimura K., Asari T., Yamashita K., Morimoto H., Hirose S., Miyashita Y., & Konishi S. (2009). Functional dissociation in right inferior frontal cortex during performance of go/no-go task.Cerebral Cortex, 19(1), 146-152.
[10] Ciaramidaro A., Toppi J., Casper C., Freitag C. M., Siniatchkin M., & Astolfi L. (2018). Multiple-brain connectivity during third party punishment: An EEG hyperscanning study.Scientific Reports, 8(1), 6822.
[11] Dalrymple-Alford, E. C. (1972). Sound similarity and color-word interference in the Stroop task.Psychonomic Science, 28(4), 209-210.
[12] Dehaene, S., & Cohen, L. (2011). The unique role of the visual word form area in reading.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(6), 254-262.
[13] De Houwer, J. (2003). On the role of stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility in the Stroop effect.Memory and Cognition, 31(3), 353-359.
[14] DeWitt, I., & Rauschecker, J. P. (2012). Phoneme and word recognition in the auditory ventral stream.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(8), E505-E514.
[15] Diaconescu A. O., Alain C., & McIntosh A. R. (2011). The co-occurrence of multisensory facilitation and cross-modal conflict in the human brain.[J] ournal of Neurophysiology, 106(6), 2896-2909.
[16] Donohue S. E., Appelbaum L. G., Park C. J., Roberts K. C., & Woldorff M. G. (2013). Cross-modal stimulus conflict: The behavioral effects of stimulus input timing in a visual-auditory Stroop task.PloS ONE, 8(4), e62802.
[17] Fitzhugh M. C., Whitehead P. S., Johnson L., Cai J. M., Baxter L. C., & Rogalsky C. (2019). A functional MRI investigation of cross-modal interference in an audiovisual Stroop task.PLoS ONE, 14(1), e0210736.
[18] Floyer-Lea A., Wylezinska M., Kincses T., & Matthews P. M. (2006). Rapid modulation of GABA concentration in human sensorimotor cortex during motor learning.Journal of Neurophysiology, 95(3), 1639-1644.
[19] Folstein J. R., Fuller K., Howard D., & DePatie T. (2017). The effect of category learning on attentional modulation of visual cortex.Neuropsychologia, 104, 18-30.
[20] Fong M. C. M., Hui N. Y., Fung E. S. W., Chu P. C. K., & Wang, W. S. Y. (2018). Conflict monitoring in multi-sensory flanker tasks: Effects of cross-modal distractors on the N2 component.Neuroscience Letters, 670, 31-35.
[21] Gale T. M., Laws K. R., & Foley K. (2006). Crowded and sparse domains in object recognition: Consequences for categorization and naming.Brain and Cognition, 60(2), 139-145.
[22] Gao Y., Wei N., Wang Z. K., Jian J., Ding G. S., Meng X. Z., & Liu L. (2015). Interaction between native and second language processing: Evidence from a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of Chinese-English bilingual children.Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(12), 1419-1432.
[高悦, 魏娜, 王正科, 简洁, 丁国盛, 孟祥芝, 刘丽. (2015). 汉-英儿童双语者母语和二语加工的相互作用: 来自神经机制方面的证据.心理学报, 47(12), 1419-1432.
[23] Gerlach C., Zhu X., & Joseph J. E. (2015). Structural similarity exerts opposing effects on perceptual differentiation and categorization: An FMRI study.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(5), 974-987.
[24] Grill-Spector, K., & Weiner, K. S. (2014). The functional architecture of the ventral temporal cortex and its role in categorization.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(8), 536-548.
[25] Guo W., Geng S., Cao M., & Feng J. (2022). Functional gradient of the fusiform cortex for Chinese character recognition.eNeuro, 9(3), 0495.
[26] Hecht, D., & Reiner, M. (2009). Sensory dominance in combinations of audio, visual and haptic stimuli.Experimental Brain Research, 193(2), 307-314.
[27] Hickok, G. (2009). Eight problems for the mirror neuron theory of action understanding in monkeys and humans.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(7), 1229-1243.
[28] Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2007). The cortical organization of speech processing.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(5), 393-402.
[29] Hirst R. J., Kicks E. C., Allen H. A., & Cragg L. (2019). Cross-modal interference-control is reduced in childhood but maintained in aging: A cohort study of stimulus-and response-interference in cross-modal and unimodal Stroop tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(5), 553-572.
[30] Huang S., Li Y., Zhang W., Zhang B., Liu X., Mo L., & Chen Q. (2015). Multisensory competition is modulated by sensory pathway interactions with fronto-sensorimotor and default-mode network regions.Journal of Neuroscience, 35(24), 9064-9077.
[31] Joseph, J. E., & Gathers, A. D. (2003). Effects of structural similarity on neural substrates for object recognition.Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3(1), 1-16.
[32] Kho S. K., Keeble D. R. T., Wong H. K., & Estudillo A. J. (2023). Investigating the role of the fusiform face area and occipital face area using multifocal transcranial direct current stimulation.Neuropsychologia, 189, 108663.
[33] Kornblum S., Hasbroucq T., & Osman A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-A model and taxonomy.Psychological Review, 97(2), 253-270.
[34] Krause, B., & Cohen Kadosh, R. (2014). Not all brains are created equal: The relevance of individual differences in responsiveness to transcranial electrical stimulation.Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, 8, 25.
[35] Krause B., Márquez-Ruiz J., & Cohen Kadosh R. (2013). The effect of transcranial direct current stimulation: A role for cortical excitation/inhibition balance?Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 602.
[36] Li Z., Gu R., Qi M., Cen J., Zhang S., Gu J., Zeng X., & Chen Q. (2019). Loss of vision dominance at the preresponse level in tinnitus patients: Preliminary behavioral evidence.Frontiers in Neuroscience, 13, 482.
[37] Liu C. L., Lai M. H., Tien K. W., Chuang Y. H., Wu S. H., & Lee C. Y. (2011). Visually and phonologically similar characters in incorrect Chinese words: Analysis, identification, and applications.ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing, 10, 1-39.
[38] Little D. R., Nosofsky R., & Denton S. E. (2011). Response-time tests of logical-rule models of categorization.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 1-27.
[39] Little, J. L., & McDaniel, M A. (2015). Individual differences in category learning: Memorization versus rule abstraction.Memory and Cognition, 43, 283-297.
[40] Marmurek H. H., Proctor C., & Javor A. (2006). Stroop-like serial position effects in color naming of words and nonwords.Experimental Psychology, 53(2), 105-110.
[41] Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain.Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25-45.
[42] Mate, J., & Baqués, J. (2009). Visual similarity at encoding and retrieval in an item recognition task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(7), 1277-1284.
[43] Mayer A. R., Ryman S. G., Hanlon F. M., Dodd A. B., & Ling J. M. (2016). Look hear! The prefrontal cortex is stratified by modality of sensory input during multisensory cognitive control.Cerebral Cortex, 27(5), 2831-2840.
[44] Misselhorn J., Friese U., & Engel A. K. (2019). Frontal and parietal alpha oscillations reflect attentional modulation of cross-modal matching.Scientific Reports, 9(1), 5030.
[45] Molholm S., Ritter W., Javitt D. C., & Foxe J. J. (2004). Multisensory visual-auditory object recognition in humans: A high-density electrical mapping study.Cerebral Cortex, 14(4), 452-465.
[46] Montgomery J. W. (1995). Examination of phonological working memory in specifically language-impaired children.Applied Psycholinguistics, 16(4), 355-378.
[47] Mummery C. J., Patterson K., Hodges J. R., & Price C. J. (1998). Functional neuroanatomy of the semantic system: Divisible by what? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(6), 766-777.
[48] Napolitano, A. C., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2004). Is a picture worth a thousand words? The flexible nature of modality dominance in young children.Child Development, 75(6), 1850-1870.
[49] Nitsche, M. A., & Paulus, W. (2001). Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans.Neurology, 57(10), 1899-1901.
[50] Nikolin S., Martin D., Loo C. K., & Boonstra T. W. (2018). Effects of TDCS dosage on working memory in healthy participants.Brain Stimulation, 11(3), 518-527.
[51] Nosofsky R. M., Palmeri T. J., & McKinley S. C. (1994). Rule-plus-exception model of classification learning.Psychological Review, 101(1), 53-79.
[52] Parkin B. L., Ekhtiari H., & Walsh V. F. (2015). Non-invasive human brain stimulation in cognitive neuroscience: A primer.Neuron, 87(5), 932-945.
[53] Phillipou A., Kirkovski M., Castle D. J., Gurvich C., Abel L. A., Miles S., & Rossell S. L. (2019). High-definition transcranial direct current stimulation in anorexia nervosa: A pilot study.International Journal of Eating Disorders, 52(11), 1274-1280.
[54] Poreisz C., Boros K., Antal A., & Paulus W. (2007). Safety aspects of transcranial direct current stimulation concerning healthy subjects and patients.Brain Research Bulletin, 72(4), 208-214.
[55] Qu Q., Feng C., & Damian M. F. (2021). Interference effects of phonological similarity in word production arise from competitive incremental learning.Cognition, 212, 104738.
[56] Quinlan, P. T., & Cohen, D. J. (2012). Grouping and binding in visual short-term memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(5), 1432-1438.
[57] Ragert P., Vandermeeren Y., Camus M., & Cohen L. G. (2008). Improvement of spatial tactile acuity by transcranial direct current stimulation.Clinical Neurophysiology, 119(4), 805-811.
[58] Storkel H. L., Bontempo D. E., & Pak N. S. (2014). Online learning from input versus offline memory evolution in adult word learning: Effects of neighborhood density and phonologically related practice.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57(5), 1708-1721.
[59] Swick D., Ashley V., & Turken A. U. (2008). Left inferior frontal gyrus is critical for response inhibition.BMC Neuroscience, 9, 1-11.
[60] Van Veen, V., & Carter, C. S. (2006). Conflict and cognitive control in the brain.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 237-240.
[61] Vinckier F., Dehaene S., Jobert A., Dubus J. P., Sigman M., & Cohen L. (2007). Hierarchical coding of letter strings in the ventral stream: Dissecting the inner organization of the visual word-form system.Neuron, 55(1), 143-156.
[62] Weiss, M., & Lavidor, M. (2012). When less is more: Evidence for a facilitative cathodal tDCS effect in attentional abilities.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(9), 1826-1833.
[63] Wu D., Zhang P., Liu N., Sun K., & Xiao W. (2021). Effects of high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation over the left fusiform face area on face view discrimination depend on the individual baseline performance.Frontiers in Neuroscience, 15, 704880.
[64] Yeh, S. L., & Li, J. L. (2002). Role of structure and component in judgments of visual similarity of Chinese characters.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 28(4), 933-947.
[65] Younger J. W., Randazzo Wagner M., & Booth J. R. (2016). Weighing the cost and benefit of transcranial direct current stimulation on different reading subskills.Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10, 262.
[66] Yuval-Greenberg, S., & Deouell, L. Y. (2009). The dog’s meow: Asymmetrical interaction in cross-modal object recognition.Experimental Brain Research, 193(4), 603-614.
[67] Zatorre R. J., Chen J. L., & Penhune V. B. (2007). When the brain plays music: Auditory-motor interactions in music perception and production.Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(7), 547-558.
[68] Zeithamova D., Maddox W. T., & Schnyer. D. M. (2008). Dissociable prototype learning systems: Evidence from brain imaging and behavior.The Journal of Neuroscience, 28(49), 13194-13201.
[69] Zhang, H., & Kornblum, S. (1998). The effects of stimulus-response mapping and irrelevant stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus overlap in four-choice Stroop tasks with single-carrier stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(1), 3-19.
[70] Zhang J. L. (2005). The distinctive features for standard Chinese.Acta Acustica, 30(6), 506-514.
[张家騄. (2005). 汉语普通话区别特征系统.声学学报, 30(6), 506-514.]
[71] Zhou H., Wang A. J., Yuan X. Y., & Jiang Y. (2025). Object category differences regulate the sensory dominance of the response level in an audiovisual cross-modal conflict.Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(6), 1001-1012.
[周衡, 王爱君, 袁祥勇, 蒋毅. (2025). 客体类别差异调节视听跨通道冲突中反应水平的感觉主导效应.心理学报, 57(6), 1001-1002.]
[72] Zhou H., Yuan X., Xie P., Wang A., & Jiang Y. (2025). Distinct processing stages of cross-modal conflict in schizophrenia: The role of auditory cortex underactivation.Schizophrenia Research, 281, 191-200.