CAJ | 학술논문

采用3（任务类型）×2（时段）被试内实验设计,对比一种混合型前瞻记忆（MPM）和事件性前瞻记忆（EBPM）在不同时段对进行中任务的干扰效应的神经机制。结果表明,在目标出现的时段,MPM对进行中任务有干扰效应,额区电极最活跃且电压最高;在非目标时段MPM无干扰效应,但刺激出现后200～300ms额区电极较活跃。说明前瞻记忆任务在大脑中可能处于较高的激活状态,额叶灵活地调配意识的不同状态在MPM中参与的程度和时段。
채용3（임무류형）×2（시단）피시내실험설계,대비일충혼합형전첨기억（MPM）화사건성전첨기억（EBPM）재불동시단대진행중임무적간우효응적신경궤제。결과표명,재목표출현적시단,MPM대진행중임무유간우효응,액구전겁최활약차전압최고;재비목표시단MPM무간우효응,단자격출현후200～300ms액구전겁교활약。설명전첨기억임무재대뇌중가능처우교고적격활상태,액협령활지조배의식적불동상태재MPM중삼여적정도화시단。
Prospective memory（PM） refers to the task of remembering to perform an intended action at some point in the future. PM is divided into event-based prospective memory（EBPM） and time-based prospective memory. However, there are other forms of complicated PM in real life, one of which is that intended action is based on target event（i.e., PM target） and the time of PM targets occurrence is known. This form of PM is called mixed time-based and event-based prospective memory（MPM）. There is no research on the neural correlates of this form of MPM. This study aimed to examine brain activity related to MPM with event-related potentials（ERPs） technique. Fifteen junior undergraduates（eight female, seven male） aged 18～22 years（M=19.7） participated as paid volunteers. A typical paradigm for studying prospective interference effect was used in this experiment. Three conditions were tested. Subjects merely performed 1-back task in the baseline condition and should perform PM task and 1-back task in the 2 PM conditions. In the MPM condition subjects were told when the PM target（animal words） would occur, whereas in the EBPM condition, when the PM target would occur was unknown. The reaction time of MPM was signifi cantly faster than that of EBPM, and the accuracy of MPM was signifi cantly higher than that of EBPM. Reaction time and the neural correlates of 1-back task of the 3 conditions were also analyzed. As subjects were told that PM targets appeared after 10 minutes in the MPM condition and they could estimated that the target time interval was in the third block. All tasks were examined by 2 time intervals. The fi rst and second block was named non-target time interval and the third block was named target time interval. Results showed that the reaction time of 1-back task in the baseline was signifi cantly faster than that in all blocks of the EBPM condition but only faster than that in the target time of the MPM condition, which means preparatory attentional process was engaged in PM target persistently in all blocks of the EBPM condition, whereas selectively engaged only in the target time interval in the MPM condition. No prospective interference effect existed in the non-target time interval in the MPM condition. ERP data showed that the waveforms of 150～200, 200～300, 300～400ms after stimulates occurred were signifi cantly smaller for the baseline than the EBPM in all blocks and MPM condition in the target time interval. The topographical maps suggested that the components refl ected activation mainly in the frontal lobe. The waveforms of 200～300ms of MPM condition in the non-target time interval were greater than that in the baseline, and the topographical maps also suggested that the components refl ected activation mainly in the frontal lobe. The results might suggest that MPM was in a high activation state in brain when it was out of working memory. The results indicated that frontal lobe was engaged in monitoring PM targets persistently in EBPM condition, and selectively engaged in the target time interval in the MPM condition.