Literature DB >> 20173192

Strategic behavior without awareness? Effects of implicit learning in the Eriksen flanker paradigm.

Rodica Ghinescu1, Todd R Schachtman, Michael A Stadler, Monica Fabiani, Gabriele Gratton.   

Abstract

This experiment investigated whether subjects' selection and use of strategies in detecting a target letter in a flanker task requires intention. Subjects' expectancies for compatible and incompatible trials (trials on which the response to the flanker stimulus was consistent or inconsistent with the target response) were manipulated by presenting cues that signaled the occurrence of these types of trials. Three groups of subjects received explicit, partially explicit, or implicit instructions about the meaning of the cues. By the end of the experiment, all the groups were able to select and use strategies based on the cues to improve their performance. However, this strategy selection developed slowly with practice in the latter two groups, whereas it was present from the outset in the first group. In addition, forced choice tests performed after the experiment showed that the subjects in the implicit condition could not intentionally indicate which stimuli were most likely to follow a given cue. Thus, the data suggest that the selection of strategies occurred outside the subjects' awareness, and without their intention.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20173192     DOI: 10.3758/MC.38.2.197

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  29 in total

1.  Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control.

Authors:  Ulrich Mayr; Edward Awh; Paul Laurey
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Independent control of processing strategies for different locations in the visual field.

Authors:  Paul M Corballis; Gabriele Gratton
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 3.251

3.  Item-specific control of automatic processes: stroop process dissociations.

Authors:  Larry L Jacoby; D Stephen Lindsay; Sandra Hessels
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-09

4.  Stimulus- and response-conflict-induced cognitive control in the flanker task.

Authors:  Frederick Verbruggen; Wim Notebaert; Baptist Liefooghe; André Vandierendonck
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2006-04

5.  Stimulus conflict predicts conflict adaptation in a numerical flanker task.

Authors:  Wim Notebaert; Tom Verguts
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2006-12

6.  Simon says: reliability and the role of working memory and attentional control in the simon task.

Authors:  Karl W U Borgmann; Evan E Risko; Jennifer A Stolz; Derek Besner
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2007-04

7.  Intentional versus unintentional use of contingencies between perceptual events.

Authors:  K A Carlson; J H Flowers
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1996-04

8.  Manipulation of attention at study affects an explicit but not an implicit test of memory.

Authors:  K F Szymanski; C M MacLeod
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  1996 Mar-Jun

9.  Processing negativity: an evoked-potential reflection of selective attention.

Authors:  R Näätänen
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1982-11       Impact factor: 17.737

10.  Precueing spatial S-R correspondence: is there regulation of expected response conflict?

Authors:  Peter Wühr; Wilfried Kunde
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  8 in total

1.  Activation of context-specific attentional control sets by exogenous allocation of visual attention to the context?

Authors:  Caroline Gottschalk; Rico Fischer
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2016-02-05

2.  The next trial will be conflicting! Effects of explicit congruency pre-cues on cognitive control.

Authors:  Julie M Bugg; Alicia Smallwood
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2014-12-19

3.  Learned states of preparatory attentional control.

Authors:  Anthony W Sali; Brian A Anderson; Steven Yantis
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2015-06-15       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Event-related brain potentials reveal strategy selection in younger and older adults.

Authors:  Daniel C Bowie; Kathy A Low; Monica Fabiani; Gabriele Gratton
Journal:  Biol Psychol       Date:  2021-07-28       Impact factor: 3.111

5.  The shaping of cognitive control based on the adaptive weighting of expectations and experience.

Authors:  Jihyun Suh; Julie M Bugg
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2021-09-27       Impact factor: 3.140

6.  (No) time for control: Frontal theta dynamics reveal the cost of temporally guided conflict anticipation.

Authors:  Joram van Driel; Jennifer C Swart; Tobias Egner; K Richard Ridderinkhof; Michael X Cohen
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 3.282

7.  Implicit learning of stimulus regularities increases cognitive control.

Authors:  Jiaying Zhao; Devin Karbowicz; Daniel Osherson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-04-15       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Conflict Adaptation and Cue Competition during Learning in an Eriksen Flanker Task.

Authors:  Rodica Ghinescu; Todd R Schachtman; Ashley K Ramsey; Gabriele Gratton; Monica Fabiani
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 3.240

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.