臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

對於轉換虧損的來源，一直都有不同觀點的理論。根據重建歷程理論，轉換虧損來自於對轉換作業的準備不足；而另一派理論則認為，轉換虧損源自前項作業的持續作用。為了進一步釐清準備不足，以及前項作業的持續作用對轉換虧損造成的影響，本實驗利用操弄事先告知與否、作業轉換、及反應到刺激出現的間距（response-stimulus interval，即RSI）長短，並佐以高時間解析度的事件相關電位（event-related potential），觀測作業轉換中可能涉及的兩種成份歷程。本實驗結果顯示，在RSI準備時間內，事先告知下的腦電位活動不同於無事先告知，此差異代表準備歷程的存在。同時，在短RSI中，事先告知效果只存在於轉換作業上；長的RSI之下，事先告知效果同時作用在轉換與重複作業之上。且該效果只在中央-頂葉區域觀測得到，在額葉區反而沒有此效果。在刺激出現後，不管有無事先告知的操弄，轉換作業與重複作業的腦電位活動，皆隨RSI的不同而有變化。整體而言，本研究結果顯示準備不足與前項作業的持續作用，都與轉換虧損的形成有關。

There is a long debate on the source of the switch cost. According to the task-reconfiguration model, the switch cost represents the time taken for an executive process to reconfigure the system for preparing to switch from one task to another.. On the other hand, the other model proposed that the switch cost was derived from persistent activation from the previous task. In order to clarify the role of preparation and carry-over effect in task switching, the present study manipulated foreknowledge of task type (switch or repeat) and response-stimulus interval. In addition, this study used high temporal resolution technique, event-related potential, to find the two possible switching related components. The results showed that the brain activity in foreknowledge condition was different from non-foreknowledge condition during the preparation interval (RSI), indicating the existence of preparation. Meanwhile, there was only switch-specific preparation in short RSI, but non switch-specific preparation in long RSI. Most striking finding was the different sustained brain activity patterns were restricted to the centro-pareital regions, whereas no such differences were found on the frontal area. After the onset of the target, we found that the differential changed patterns of repeat-related and switch-related brain activities associated with different RSIs regardless of foreknowledge. The results of the current study suggest that both reconfiguration and carry-over effect contribute to the switch cost.

目錄
第一章 緒論--------------------------------------------------------------------1
第一節 作業轉換 …………………………………………………………… 3
第二節 神經生理學的證據……………………………………………………5
第三節 研究目的、實驗設計與假設………………………………………… 7
第二章 研究方法-------------------------------------------------------------15
第一節 研究設計…………………………………………………………… 15
壹、 受試者……………………………………………………………… 15
貳、 實驗刺激與實驗設計……………………………………………… 15
第二節 電生理紀錄………………………………………………………… 17
第三節 資料分析…………………………………………………………… 17
壹、 行為資料……………………………………………………………17
貳、 腦波資料……………………………………………………………17.
第三章 結果-------------------------------------------------------------------19
第一節 行為資料…………………………………………………………….19
第二節 腦波資料……………………………………………………………..21
壹、 反應鎖定ERP成份波……………………………………………….21
貳、 刺激鎖定ERP成份波………………………………………………25
第四章 討論-------------------------------------------------------------------29
第一節 行為資料方面………………………………………………………29
第二節 ERP成分波資料……………………………………………………31
壹、 反應鎖定下：RSI內的ERP成份波變化……………………………31
貳、 刺激鎖定：刺激呈現後的ERP成份波變化…………………………33
第五章 參考文獻-------------------------------------------------------------36

圖目錄
圖一、Norman與Shallice的注意力模型--------------------------------------------------2
圖二、反應規則示意圖------------------------------------------------------------------------9
圖三、嘗試次的流程示意圖 ----------------------------------------------------------------10
圖四、反應鎖定ERP成份波------------------------------------------------------------------24
圖五、刺激鎖定ERP成份波-----------------------------------------------------------------28
圖六、Sohn與Anderson(2001)：兩成份理論以詮釋轉換虧損隨RSI操弄的變化-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30

表目錄
表一、兩理論對於反應鎖定與刺激鎖定下ERP成份波變化的預測-----------------14
表二、行為資料：反應時間與錯誤率------------------------------------------------------20

Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Ulma & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421-452). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Allport, D. A., & Wylie, G. R. (1999). Task-switching: Positive and negative priming of task-set. In G. W. Humphreys, J. Duncan, & A. M. Treisman (Eds.), Attention, space, and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 273-296). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. (1986). Working memory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
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, 1342-1355.
Braver, T. S., Reynolds, J. R., & Donaldson, D. I. (2003). Neural mechanisms of transient and sustained cognitive control during task switching. Neuron, 39, 1-20.
Brunia, C. H. M. (1993). Waiting in readiness: Gating in attention and motor preparation. Psychophysiology, 30, 327-339.
Brunia, C. H. M., & Van Boxtel, G. J. M. (2001). Wait and see. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 43, 59-75.
Carter, C. S., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Botvinick, M., Noll, D., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance. Science, 280, 747-749.
Donchin, E., & Coles, M. G. H. (1988). Is the P300 componen a manifestation of context updating? Behavior and Brain Sciences, 11, 343-356.
Dove, A., Pollmann, S., Schubert, T., Wiggins, C. J., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2000). Prefrontal cortex activation in task switching: an event-related fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 9, 103-109.
Dreher, J.-C., Koechlin, E., Ali, S. O., & Grafman, J. (2002). The role of timing and task order during task switching. Neuroimage, 17, 95-109.
Duncan, J., & Owen, A. M. (2000). Common regions of the human frontal lobe recruited by diverse cognitive demands. Trends in Neuroscience, 23, 475-483.
Hsieh, S. (2002). Two-component processes in switching attention: a study of event-related potentials. Perception and Motor Skills, 94, 1168-1176.
Hsieh, S., & Liu, L.-C. (2005). The nature of switch cost: task set reconfiguration or carry-over effect? Cognitive Brain Research, 22, 165-175.
Hsieh, S., & Yu, Y. T. (2003). Switching between simple response-sets: inferences from the lateralized readiness potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 228-237.
Karayanidis, F., Coltheart, M., Michie, P., & Murphy, K. (2003). Electrophysiological correlated of anticipatory and poststimulus components of task switching. Psychophysiology, 40, 329-348.
Kimberg, D. Y., Aguirre, G. A., & D’Esposito, M. (2000). Modulation of task-related neural activity in task-switching: an fMRI. Cognitive Brain Research, 10, 189-196.
Kok, A. (2001). On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity. Psychophysiology, 38, 557-577.
Kutas, M., McCarthy, G., & Donchin, E. (1977). Augmenting mental chronometry: the P300 as a measure of stimulus evaluation time. Science, 197, 792-795.
Lhermitte, F. (1983). “Utilization behavior” and its relation to lesions of the frontal lobes. Brain, 106, 237-255.
Lorist, M. M., Klein, M., Nieuwenhuis, S., De Jong, R., Mulder, G., & Meijman, T. F. (2000). Mental fatigue and task control: planning and preparation. Psychophysiology, 37, 614-625.
Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to performance. Journal of Experiment Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition, 22, 1423-1442.
Miller, E., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167-202.
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G.. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation (Vol. 4, pp. 1-18). New York: Plenum Press.
Posner, M. J., & DiGirolamo, G. J. (1998). Executive attention: conflict, target detection, and cognitive control. In R. Parasuraman (Eds.), The attentive brain (pp. 401-423). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Poulsen, C., Luu, P., Davey, C., & Tucker, D. M. (2005). Dynamics of task sets: evidence from dense-array event-related potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 133-154.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognition tasks. Journal of Experiment Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763-797.
Ruge, H., Brass, M., Koch, I., Rubin, O., Merian, N., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2005). Advance preparation and stimulus-induced interference in cued task switching: further insights from BOLD fMRI. Neuropsychologia, 43, 340-355.
Rushworth, M. F. S., Passingham, R. E., & Norbe, A. C. (2002). Components of switching intentional set. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1139-1150.
Ruthruff, E., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (2001). Switching between simple cognitive tasks: the interaction of top-down and bottom-up factors. Journal of Experiment Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1404-1419.
Sohn, M.-H., & Andersanon, J. R. (2001). Task preparation and task repetition: two-component model of task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 764-778.
Sohn, M.-H., & Calson, R. A. (2000). Effects of repetition and foreknowledge in task-set reconfiguration. Journal of Experiment Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition, 27, 1445-1460.
Sohn, M.-H., Ursu, S., Andersanon, J. R., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2000). The role of prefrontal cortex and posterior parietal cortex in task-switching. Processing of National Academy of Science, 97, 13448-13453.
Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: the method of additive factors. Acta Psychology, 30, 276-315.
Wylie, G.., & Allport,. A. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of “switch cost”. Psychological Research, 63, 212-233.
Wylie, G. R., Javitt, D. C., & Foxe, J. J. (2003a). Cognitive control processes during an anticipated switch of task. European Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 667-672.
Wylie, G. R., Javitt, D. C., & Foxe, J. J. (2003b). Task switching: a high-density electrical mapping study. Neuroimage, 20, 2322-2342.
Wylie, G. R., Javitt, D. C., & Foxe, J. J. (2004). Don’t think of a white bear: an fMRIinvestigation of the effects of sequential instructional sets on cortical activity in task-switching paradigm. Humman Brain Mapping, 21, 279-297.