Literature DB >> 25689002

Expectations and experience: Dissociable bases for cognitive control?

Julie M Bugg1, Nathaniel T Diede1, Emily R Cohen-Shikora1, Diana Selmeczy1.   

Abstract

Classic theories emphasized the role of expectations in the intentional control of attention and action. However, recent theorizing has implicated experience-dependent, online adjustments as the primary basis for cognitive control--adjustments that appear to be implicit (Blais, Harris, Guerrero, & Bunge, 2012). The purpose of the current study was to evaluate whether explicit expectations play any role in cognitive control above and beyond experience. In a novel precued lists paradigm, participants were administered abbreviated lists of Stroop trials. For half of the lists, precues led participants to validly expect lists of varying proportion congruency (e.g., mostly congruent [MC], mostly incongruent [MI]; Experiments 1 to 4). The Stroop effect was greater in cued MC relative to uncued MC lists. By contrast, the Stroop effect was equivalent in cued MI and uncued MI lists. Only when preparation was encouraged via a speed manipulation (Experiment 3) or incentives (Experiment 4) did we find evidence of heightened control when an MI list was expected, in the form of a short-lived reduction in the Stroop effect on the first (experience-free) trial. These patterns suggest (a) expectations play a role in the relaxation of cognitive control, independent of experience (as also shown in Experiment 5, wherein expectations were varied while holding experience constant across lists), but (b) experience is the dominant basis for the sustained heightening of cognitive control (after the first trial). Theoretical implications of dissociating the contributions of expectations and experience to cognitive control are discussed, including interpretations of the list-wide proportion congruence effect. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25689002     DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000106

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


  17 in total

1.  Proactive control of irrelevant task rules during cued task switching.

Authors:  Julie M Bugg; Todd S Braver
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2015-07-28

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.  Evidence for instructions-based updating of task-set representations: the informed fadeout effect.

Authors:  Maayan Pereg; Nachshon Meiran
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2017-02-16

4.  The strategic control of prospective memory monitoring in response to complex and probabilistic contextual cues.

Authors:  Julie M Bugg; B Hunter Ball
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-07

5.  The effects of awareness and secondary task demands on Stroop performance in the pre-cued lists paradigm.

Authors:  Julie M Bugg; Nathaniel T Diede
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2017-01-04

6.  Providing goal reminders eliminates the relationship between working memory capacity and Stroop errors.

Authors:  Audrey V B Hood; Keith A Hutchison
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Can the Stroop effect serve as the gold standard of conflict monitoring and control? A conceptual critique.

Authors:  Daniel Algom; Daniel Fitousi; Eran Chajut
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-11-11

8.  The flexibility of cognitive control: Age equivalence with experience guiding the way.

Authors:  Emily R Cohen-Shikora; Nathaniel T Diede; Julie M Bugg
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2018-08-06

9.  Performance feedback promotes proactive but not reactive adaptation of conflict-control.

Authors:  Christina Bejjani; Sophie Tan; Tobias Egner
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Distractor probabilities modulate flanker task performance.

Authors:  Eli Bulger; Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham; Abigail L Noyce
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-11-01       Impact factor: 2.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.