Literature DB >> 28095005

Identifying stimuli that cue multiple responses triggers the congruency sequence effect independent of response conflict.

Daniel H Weissman1, Katelyn M Colter1, Lauren D Grant1, Patrick G Bissett2.   

Abstract

According to most accounts of executive control, resisting distraction requires enhancing task-relevant processing, reducing task-irrelevant processing, or both. Consistent with this view, the congruency effect in Stroop-like tasks-a putative measure of distraction-is often smaller after highly distracting incongruent trials than after less distracting congruent trials. Competing accounts of executive control, however, differ on which aspect of an incongruent trial triggers this congruency sequence effect (CSE). The activation-suppression account posits the activation of an incorrect response. In contrast, the response cueing account posits identifying stimuli that cue multiple responses. To distinguish between these accounts, we conducted 2 experiments involving a modified prime-probe task wherein participants respond to the distracter in occasional catch trials. We found that the CSE is triggered by identifying stimuli that cue multiple responses, rather than by the activation of an incorrect response. Further, we observed this effect while ruling out an alternative "response conflict" trigger. These findings are more consistent with the response cueing account than with the activation-suppression account. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28095005     DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000350

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  3 in total

1.  Let your fingers do the walking: Finger force distinguishes competing accounts of the congruency sequence effect.

Authors:  Daniel H Weissman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-10

2.  The state of memory-matched distractor in working memory influence the visual attention.

Authors:  Quanshan Long; Ting Luo; Sheng Zhang; Yuanling Jiang; Na Hu; Yan Gu; Peng Xu; Antao Chen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 3.  Measuring Adaptive Control in Conflict Tasks.

Authors:  Senne Braem; Julie M Bugg; James R Schmidt; Matthew J C Crump; Daniel H Weissman; Wim Notebaert; Tobias Egner
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2019-07-19       Impact factor: 20.229

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.