认知控制的层级性：来自任务切换的脑电证据*

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01167

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

认知控制的主要研究范式之一是任务切换。以往研究发现切换代价受到认知控制层级性的调节, 但鲜有研究探索这一调节过程的动态神经机制。本研究通过嵌套的线索-任务切换范式考察不同层级任务切换代价的差异及其神经机制。在实验中, 要求被试完成高低两种层级任务, 低层级任务要求被试判断数字大小(或奇偶); 高层级任务则须先加工数字的某一语义特征(如当前数字是否是偶数), 然后进行大小判断。行为结果表明, 高层级任务切换代价显著大于低层级任务切换代价。线索锁时的脑电结果表明, 层级效应最早出现于P2成分, 切换效应(切换与重复之差)在CNV成分上受到任务层级的调控, 反映了在任务目标重构阶段给予高层级任务更多的选择性注意以及更高的主动性控制。目标锁时的脑电结果表明, 在N2及慢波(SP)成分上, 高层级任务切换与重复的波幅差异相比低层级任务显著更大, 反映了在抑制旧任务集与重构新反应集的过程中增强的反应性控制。这些结果为任务设置重构论和认知控制的层级性提供了新的证据。

关键词: 认知控制, 任务切换, 切换代价, 层级控制

Abstract:

The task-switching paradigm is one of the leading research paradigms that is widely used to explore cognitive control. Previous studies have shown that switch costs are greater for high hierarchical tasks than for low hierarchical tasks, and a number of ERP studies on rule structure learning, rule switching, task complexity, and asymmetric task switching have coherently found that N2, P3, and late components are associated with the hierarchical control process. For example, Lu et al. (2017) designed three levels of tasks, but were not concerned with switch costs. Li et al. (2019) also designed three levels of tasks, but were concerned with asymmetric switch costs. The other two studies focused on stimulus or rule switching without concern for task switching. However, to date, no study has clearly addressed the ERP correlates of hierarchical effects in task-switching.

A nested cue-task switching paradigm was used to investigate the brain responses associated with different hierarchical effects in task switching. Participants were asked to perform two hierarchical tasks. In the low hierarchical task, participants judged digits (1-9, except 5) as large/small or odd/even, respectively. In the high hierarchical task, participants identified the semantic features of the presented digits (e.g., whether the digit was an even number) before they performed the low hierarchical task (e.g., the large/small task). For example, participants first identified whether the current number was a large digit (i.e., greater than five) and then made an odd/even judgment on it. If the current number was not greater than five, then they did not respond (no-go trials). The proportion of no-go trials was 16%, and the no-go and subsequent go trials were excluded from data analysis. Thirty Chinese students (15 males) participated in the EEG experiment. They were asked to press the “F” key for odd or large numbers and the “J” key for even or small numbers. The links between the attributes of the cues and response keys were counterbalanced between participants.

Behavioral results showed that the RT was longer for the high hierarchical trials than for the low hierarchical trials, indicating that the high hierarchical task was more complex than the low hierarchical task. Furthermore, there was a significant interaction between transition type and hierarchical level, with greater switch costs occurring in the high hierarchical task than in the low hierarchical task, indicating that switching in a low hierarchical task is easier than in a high hierarchical task. Cue-locked ERP results showed that the main effect of the hierarchical level was significant in P2, with higher P2 amplitudes for the high hierarchical trials than for the low hierarchical trials. A significant main effect of transition type was found in the CNV, with higher CNV amplitudes for the high hierarchical trials than for the low hierarchical trials, and there was a significant interaction between transition type and hierarchical level. Further analysis of this interaction revealed that task-switching trials elicited larger CNV amplitudes than task-repeating trials in the high hierarchical task, but not in the low hierarchical task. The target-locked ERP results showed that the main effect of transition type was significant for N2, P3, and SP. The difference in N2 and SP amplitudes between high hierarchical task switching and task repetition was significantly greater than between low hierarchical task switching and task repetition.

The purpose of the present study was to explore the ERP correlates of hierarchical effects in task-switching. The behavioral results replicated previous findings. Cue-locked ERP results indicated that the hierarchical effect first appeared in the P2 component and that the switch effect on the CNV component was modulated by the task hierarchy, reflecting more selective attention given to high hierarchical tasks and higher proactive control during the task-set reconfiguration stage. The target-locked ERP results indicated that task switching induced more negative N2 amplitudes and smaller P3 and SP amplitudes compared to task repetition. The difference wave amplitudes between high hierarchical task switching and repetition were significantly greater for the N2 and SP amplitudes than for the low hierarchical task, reflecting that the process of inhibiting the old task-set and reconfiguring the new response set is more complex, resulting in increased reactive control. These findings provide new evidence for the task-set reconfiguration theory and the hierarchical nature of cognitive control.

Key words: cognitive control, task switch, switch costs, hierarchical control

中图分类号:

B842

吴建校, 曹碧华, 陈云, 李子夏, 李富洪. (2022). 认知控制的层级性：来自任务切换的脑电证据^*. 心理学报, 54(10), 1167-1180.

WU Jianxiao, CAO Bihua, CHEN Yun, LI Zixia, LI Fuhong. (2022). Hierarchical control in task switching: Electrophysiological evidence. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(10), 1167-1180.

图/表 5

图1 任务层级结构及实验程序

表1 不同条件下的反应时(ms)和正确率(%) (M ± SD)

实验条件	反应时	正确率
低层级任务重复	763 ± 170	97.7 ± 2
低层级任务切换	850 ± 206	96.9 ± 3
高层级任务重复	975 ± 138	94.9 ± 4
高层级任务切换	1211 ± 202	92.9 ± 5

图2 线索锁时不同条件的ERP波形

图3 目标锁时不同条件的ERP波形

图4 目标锁时下不同层级任务差异波的地形图

参考文献 65

[1]	Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (1999). Task-switching:Positive and negative priming of task-set. In: Humphreys, G.W., Duncan, J., Treisman, A.M. (Eds.), Attention, space and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience (pp.273-296)., Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.
[2]	Altmann, E. M. (2019). Response-cue interval effects in extended-runs task switching: Memory, or monitoring? Psychological Research, 83(5), 1007-1019. doi: 10.1007/s00426-017-0921-3 pmid: 28951972
[3]	Badre, D., & D'Esposito, M. (2007). Functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence for a hierarchical organization of the prefrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(12), 2082-2099. pmid: 17892391
[4]	Badre, D., & Nee, D. E. (2018). Frontal cortex and the hierarchical control of behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2), 170-188. doi: S1364-6613(17)30245-0 pmid: 29229206
[5]	Baene, W. D., & Brass, M. (2013). Switch probability context (in) sensitivity within the cognitive control network. Neuroimage, 77, 207-214. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.03.057 URL
[6]	Barceló, F., & Cooper, P. S. (2018). An information theory account of late frontoparietal ERP positivities in cognitive control. Psychophysiology, 55(3), e12814.
[7]	Barceló, F., Muñoz-Céspedes, J. M., Pozo, M. A., & Rubia, F. J. (2000). Attentional set shifting modulates the target P3b response in the wisconsin card sorting test. Neuropsychologia, 38(10), 1342-1355. pmid: 10869577
[8]	Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation:Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In A. R. A.Conway, C.Jarrold, M.J. Kane, A.Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 76-106). New York: Oxford University Press.
[9]	Brunia, C. H. M. (1999). Neural aspects of anticipatory behavior. Acta Psychologica, 101(2-3), 213-242. pmid: 10344186
[10]	Collins, A. G., Cavanagh, J. F., & Frank, M. J. (2014). Human EEG uncovers latent generalizable rule structure during learning. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(13), 4677-4685. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3900-13.2014 pmid: 24672013
[11]	Folstein, J. R., & van Petten, C. (2008). Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: A review. Psychophysiology, 45(1), 152-170. pmid: 17850238
[12]	Fröber, K., Raith, L., & Dreisbach, G. (2018). The dynamic balance between cognitive flexibility and stability: The influence of local changes in reward expectation and global task context on voluntary switch rate. Psychological Research, 82(1), 65-77. doi: 10.1007/s00426-017-0922-2 pmid: 28939942
[13]	Gajewski, P. D., Ferdinand, N. K., Kray, J., & Falkenstein, M. (2018). Understanding sources of adult age differences in task switching: Evidence from behavioral and ERP studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 92, 255-275. doi: S0149-7634(17)30395-0 pmid: 29885425
[14]	Gajewski, P. D., Kleinsorge, T., & Falkenstein, M. (2010). Electrophysiological correlates of residual switch costs. Cortex, 46(9), 1138-1148. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.07.014 pmid: 19717147
[15]	Gajewski, P. D., Stoerig, P., & Falkenstein, M. (2008). ERP-correlates of response selection in a response conflict paradigm. Brain Research, 1189, 127-134. pmid: 18053974
[16]	Grzyb, K. R., & Hubner, R. (2013). Excessive response-repetition costs under task switching: How response inhibition amplifies response conflict. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 39(1), 126-139. doi: 10.1037/a0028477 URL
[17]	Han, J., Dai, Y., Xie, L., & Li, F. (2018). Brain responses associated with different hierarchical effects on cues and targets during rule shifting. Biological Psychology, 134, 52-63. doi: S0301-0511(18)30128-5 pmid: 29476839
[18]	Han, J., Xie, L., Cao, B., Li, J., Chen, Y., & Li, F. (2019). More abstract, more difficult to shift: Behavior and electrophysiological evidence. Behavioural Brain Research, 362, 273-278. doi: S0166-4328(18)31192-6 pmid: 30615892
[19]	Hirsch, P., Roesch, C., & Koch, I. (2020). Evidence for a multicomponent hierarchical representation of dual tasks. Memory & Cognition, 49(2), 350-363. doi: 10.3758/s13421-020-01097-3 URL
[20]	Hommel, B., Gehrke, J., & Knuf, L. (2000). Hierarchical coding in the perception and memory of spatial layouts. Psychological Research, 64(1), 1-10. doi: 10.1007/s004260000032 URL
[21]	Hsieh, S. L., & Wu, M. Y. (2011). Electrophysiological correlates of preparation and implementation for different types of task shifts. Brain Research, 1423, 41-52. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2011.09.018 pmid: 22000079
[22]	Huang, S. L., & Lin, C. D. (2009). Theoretical controversy and integration of task switching research. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 7(4), 304-311.
	[黄四林, 林崇德. (2009). 任务切换机制研究的理论争议与整合. 心理与行为研究, 7(4), 304-311.]
[23]	Jiang, H. (2018). Reconfiguration and interference in voluntary task switching. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(9), 1624-1631. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2018.01624 URL
	[蒋浩. (2018). 自主任务转换中的重构和干扰. 心理科学进展, 26(9), 1624-1631.]
[24]	Karayanidis, F., Coltheart, M., Michie, P. T., & Murphy, K. (2003). Electrophysiological correlates of anticipatory and poststimulus components of task switching. Psychophysiology, 40(3), 329-348. pmid: 12946108
[25]	Karayanidis, F., & Jamadar, S. D. (2014). Event-related potentials reveal multiple components of proactive and reactive control in task switching. In: Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (Eds.), task switching and cognitive control (pp.200-236). Oxford University Press, New York.
[26]	Karayanidis, F., Jamadar, S., Ruge, H., Phillips, N., Heathcote, A., & Forstmann, B. U. (2010). Advance preparation in task-switching: Converging evidence from behavioral, brain activation, and model-based approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 25. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00025 pmid: 21833196
[27]	Kieffaber, P. D., & Hetrick, W. P. (2005). Event-related potential correlates of task switching and switch costs. Psychophysiology, 42(1), 56-71. pmid: 15720581
[28]	Kieffaber, P. D., Kruschke, J. K., Cho, R. Y., Walker, P. M., & Hetrick, W. P. (2013). Dissociating stimulus-set and response-set in the context of task-set switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 700-719. doi: 10.1037/a0029545 URL
[29]	Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849-874. doi: 10.1037/a0019842 URL
[30]	Kleinsorge, T., & Heuer, H. (1999). Hierarchical switching in a multi-dimensional task space. Psychological Research, 62(4), 300-312. doi: 10.1007/s004260050060 URL
[31]	Lashley, K. S. (1951). The problem of serial order in behavior. In L. A. Jeffress, (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behavior (pp. 112-136). Wiley.
[32]	Li, J., Cao, B., Han, J., Xie, L., & Li, F. (2019). Not inertia but reconfiguration: Asymmetric switch cost in a hierarchical task. Brain Research, 1720, 146291.
[33]	Lu, M., Doñamayor, N., Münte, T. F., & Bahlmann, J. (2017). Event-related potentials and neural oscillations dissociate levels of cognitive control. Behavioural Brain Research, 320, 154-164. doi: S0166-4328(16)31239-6 pmid: 27979693
[34]	Luck, S. J., & Hillyard, S. A. (2010). Electrophysiological correlates of feature analysis during visual search. Psychophysiology, 31(3), 291-308. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1994.tb02218.x URL
[35]	Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1124-1140. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1124 URL
[36]	Meiran, N. (2008). The dual implication of dual affordance: Stimulus-task binding and attentional focus changing during task preparation. Experimental Psychology, 55(4), 251-259. pmid: 18683622
[37]	Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167-202. pmid: 11283309
[38]	Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 32(3), 493-516.
[39]	Nicholson, R., Karayanidis, F., Bumak, E., Poboka, D., & Michie, P. T. (2006). ERPs dissociate the effects of switching task sets and task cues. Brain Research, 1095(1), 107-123. pmid: 16714004
[40]	Nicholson, R., Karayanidis, F., Poboka, D., Heathcote, A., & Michie, P. T. (2005). Electrophysiological correlates of anticipatory task-switching processes. Psychophysiology, 42(5), 540-554. pmid: 16176376
[41]	Nie, Q.-Y., Müller, H. J., & Conci, M. (2017). Hierarchical organization in visual working memory: From global ensemble to individual object structure. Cognition, 159, 85-96. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.11.009 URL
[42]	Poljac, E., & Yeung, N. (2014). Dissociable neural correlates of intention and action preparation in voluntary task switching. Cerebral Cortex, 24(2), 465-478. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhs326 URL
[43]	Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207-231. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207 URL
[44]	Rosenbaum, D. A., Kenny, S. B., & Derr, M. A. (1983). Hierarchical control of rapid movement sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9(1), 86-102. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.9.1.86 URL
[45]	Rushworth, M. F. S., Passingham, R. E., & Nobre, A. C. (2002). Components of switching intentional set. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(8), 1139-1150. pmid: 12495521
[46]	Schneider, D. W. (2017). Phasic alertness and residual switch costs in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(2), 317-327. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000318 URL
[47]	Schneider, D. W. & Logan, G. D. (2006). Hierarchical control of cognitive processes: Switching tasks in sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 623-640. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.135.4.623 URL
[48]	Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 92-105. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.92 URL
[49]	Shi, Y., Q., & Zhou, X. L. (2004). Task switching, a paradigm in the study of executive control. Advances in Psychological Science, 12(5), 672-679.
	[史艺荃, 周晓林. (2004). 执行控制研究的重要范式——任务切换. 心理科学进展, 12(5), 672-679.]
[50]	Swainson, R., Cunnington, R., Jackson, G. M., Rorden, C., Peters, A. M., Morris, P. G., & Jackson, S. R. (2003). Cognitive control mechanisms revealed by ERP and fMRI: Evidence from repeated task-switching. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15(6), 785-799. pmid: 14511532
[51]	Swainson, R., Jackson, S. R., & Jackson, G. M. (2006). Using advance information in dynamic cognitive control: An ERP study of task-switching. Brain Research, 1105, 61-72. pmid: 16626653
[52]	Swainson, R., Martin, D., & Prosser, L. (2017). Task-switch costs subsequent to cue-only trials. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(8), 1453-1470. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2016.1188321 URL
[53]	Swainson, R., Prosser, L., Karavasilev, K., & Romanczuk, A. (2019). The effect of performing versus preparing a task on the subsequent switch cost. Psychological Research, 85(1), 364-383. doi: 10.1007/s00426-019-01254-7 URL
[54]	Tarantino, V., Mazzonetto, I., & Vallesi, A. (2016). Electrophysiological correlates of the cognitive control processes underpinning mixing and switching costs. Brain Research, 1646, 160-173. doi: S0006-8993(16)30410-3 pmid: 27238463
[55]	Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 601-626. doi: 10.1037/a0019791 pmid: 20565170
[56]	van Veen, V., & Carter, C. S. (2002). The timing of action--monitoring processes in the anterior cingulate cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(4), 593-602. doi: 10.1162/08989290260045837 URL
[57]	Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46(4), 361-413. pmid: 12809680
[58]	Woodward, T. S., Meier, B., Tipper, C., & Graf, P. (2003). Bivalency is costly: Bivalent stimuli elicit cautious responding. Experimental Psychology, 50(4), 233-238. pmid: 14587170
[59]	Wylie, G., & Allport, A. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs”. Psychological Research, 63(3-4), 212-233. doi: 10.1007/s004269900003 URL
[60]	Wylie, G. R., Murray, M. M., Javitt, D. C., & Foxe, J. J. (2009). Distinct neurophysiological mechanisms mediate mixing costs and switch costs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(1), 105-118. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2009.21009 pmid: 18476759
[61]	Xie, L., Cao, B., Li, Z., & Li, F. (2020). Neural dynamics of cognitive control in various types of incongruence. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14, 214. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00214 pmid: 32581754
[62]	Yeung, N., & Cohen, J. D. (2006). The impact of cognitive deficits on conflict monitoring: Predictable dissociations between the error-related negativity and N2. Psychological Science, 17(2), 164-171. pmid: 16466425
[63]	Zhu, M., Zhuo, B., Cao, B., & Li, F. (2020). Distinct brain activation in response to negative feedback at different stages in a variant of the wisconsin card sorting Test. Biological Psychology, 150, 107810.
[64]	Zhuo, B. X., Chen, Y., Zhu, M. Q., Cao, B. H., & Li, F. H. (2021a). Response variations can promote the efficiency of task switching: Electrophysiological evidence. Neuropsychologia, 156, 107828.
[65]	Zhuo, B. X., Zhu, M. Q., Cao, B. H., & Li, F. H. (2021b). More change in task repetition, less cost in task switching: Behavioral and event-related potential evidence. European Journal of Neuroscience, 53(8), 2553-2566. doi: 10.1111/ejn.15113 URL