4.5 Article

An ERP investigation of the Stroop task: The role of the cingulate in attentional allocation and conflict resolution

期刊

BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 1253, 期 -, 页码 139-148

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2008.11.069

关键词

Stroop; Electroencephalogram (EEG); Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC); Attention; Interference; Facilitation

资金

  1. The University of Auckland Emerging Research Excellence award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The majority of studies support a role of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) in the attentional control necessary for conflict resolution in the Stroop task; however, the time course of activation and the neural substrates underlying the Stroop task remain contentious. We used high-density EEG to record visual-evoked potentials from 16 healthy subjects while performing a manual version of the traditional Stroop colour-word task. Difference waveforms for congruent-control and incongruent-control conditions were similar in amplitude and had a similar spatial distribution in the time window of 260-430 ms post stimulus onset. Source estimation indicated particularly middle cingulate involvement in congruent-control and incongruent-control difference waveforms. In contrast, the difference waveform for the incongruent-congruent contrast was observed later (in the time window of 370-480 ms), had a different spatial distribution, and source estimation indicated that the anterior cingulate underlies this difference waveform. As congruent-control and incongruent-control differences have a similar timeframe and cingulate source, we propose that this indicates early attentional allocation processes. That is, the identification of two sources of information (the word and the colour it is printed in) and the selective attention to one. The later peak in the incongruent-congruent difference wave, originating in anterior cingulate, likely reflects identification (and subsequent resolution) of conflict in the two sources of information. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据