Literature DB >> 22563632

Can contingency learning alone account for item-specific control? Evidence from within- and between-language ISPC effects.

Nart Bedin Atalay1, Mine Misirlisoy.   

Abstract

The item-specific proportion congruence (ISPC) manipulation (Jacoby, Lindsay, & Hessels, 2003) produces larger Stroop interference for mostly congruent items than mostly incongruent items. This effect has been attributed to dynamic control over word-reading processes. However, proportion congruence of an item in the ISPC manipulation is completely confounded with response contingency, suggesting the alternative hypothesis, that the ISPC effect is a result of learning response contingencies (Schmidt & Besner, 2008). The current study asks whether the ISPC effect can be explained by a pure stimulus-response contingency-learning account, or whether other control processes play a role as well, by comparing within- and between-language conditions in a bilingual task. Experiment 1 showed that contingency learning for noncolor words was larger for the within-language than the between-language condition. Experiment 2 revealed significant ISPC effects for both within- and between-language conditions; importantly, the effect was larger in the former. The results of the contingency analyses for Experiment 2 were parallel to that of Experiment 1 and did not show an interaction between contingency and congruency. Put together, these sets of results support the view that contingency-learning processes dominate color-word ISPC effects.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22563632     DOI: 10.1037/a0028458

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  12 in total

1.  Relative speed of processing determines color-word contingency learning.

Authors:  Noah D Forrin; Colin M MacLeod
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-10

2.  Temporal and spectral dynamics underlying cognitive control modulated by task-irrelevant stimulus-response learning.

Authors:  Yanan Cao; Xiangyi Cao; Zhenzhu Yue; Ling Wang
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 3.282

Review 3.  Questioning conflict adaptation: proportion congruent and Gratton effects reconsidered.

Authors:  James R Schmidt
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2013-08

4.  Item-specific control of attention in the Stroop task: Contingency learning is not the whole story in the item-specific proportion-congruent effect.

Authors:  Giacomo Spinelli; Stephen J Lupker
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2020-04

5.  Best not to bet on the horserace: A comment on Forrin and MacLeod (2017) and a relevant stimulus-response compatibility view of colour-word contingency learning asymmetries.

Authors:  James R Schmidt
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-02

6.  Contingencies and attentional capture: the importance of matching stimulus informativeness in the item-specific proportion congruent task.

Authors:  James R Schmidt
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-06-02

7.  Context-specific temporal learning with non-conflict stimuli: proof-of-principle for a learning account of context-specific proportion congruent effects.

Authors:  James R Schmidt; Céline Lemercier; Jan De Houwer
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-10-30

8.  ISPC effect is not observed when the word comes too late: a time course analysis.

Authors:  Nart B Atalay; Mine Misirlisoy
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-12-05

9.  In Support of a Distinction between Voluntary and Stimulus-Driven Control: A Review of the Literature on Proportion Congruent Effects.

Authors:  Julie M Bugg; Matthew J C Crump
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2012-09-27

10.  Temporal Learning and Rhythmic Responding: No Reduction in the Proportion Easy Effect with Variable Response-Stimulus Intervals.

Authors:  James R Schmidt
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-05-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.