Literature DB >> 31144859

Adaptation to conflict frequency without contingency and temporal learning: Evidence from the picture-word interference task.

Giacomo Spinelli1, Jason R Perry1, Stephen J Lupker1.   

Abstract

In interference tasks (e.g., Stroop, 1935), the difference between congruent and incongruent latencies (i.e., the "congruency" effect) is larger in trial blocks containing mostly congruent trials than in trial blocks containing mostly incongruent trials (the proportion-congruent [PC] effect). Although the PC effect has typically been interpreted as reflecting adjustments in attention toward/away from the task-irrelevant dimension (i.e., a conflict-adaptation strategy), recent research has suggested alternative accounts based on the learning of either contingencies (i.e., distractor-response associations) or of temporal expectancies (i.e., the typical response speed on previous trials), accounts in which conflict adaptation plays no role. Using the picture-word interference paradigm, we report data from two PC manipulations in which contingency learning was made impossible by using nonrepeated distractors (Experiment 1A) or both nonrepeated distractors and responses (Experiment 1B). The classic PC effect emerged in both experiments. In addition, learning of temporal expectancies could not explain the present PC effects either, as results from trial-level analyses of Experiments 1A and 1B and a nonconflict version of Experiment 1B (Experiment 2) were inconsistent with the predictions of the temporal learning account of PC effects. These results suggest that conflict adaptation remains a credible explanation for PC effects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31144859     DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000656

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


  10 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Evaluating the learning of stimulus-control associations through incidental memory of reinforcement events.

Authors:  Christina Bejjani; Tobias Egner
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2021-09-09       Impact factor: 3.140

4.  When global and local information about attentional demands collide: evidence for global dominance.

Authors:  Jihyun Suh; Merve Ileri-Tayar; Julie M Bugg
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 2.157

5.  The effect of proportion manipulation on the size-congruency and distance effects in the numerical Stroop task.

Authors:  Ido Shichel; Liat Goldfarb
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2022-03-07

6.  Distinct but correlated latent factors support the regulation of learned conflict-control and task-switching.

Authors:  Christina Bejjani; Rick H Hoyle; Tobias Egner
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 3.746

7.  Proactive and reactive metacontrol in task switching.

Authors:  Moon Sun Kang; Yu-Chin Chiu
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2021-06-16

8.  Minimal impact of consolidation on learned switch-readiness.

Authors:  Christina Bejjani; Audrey Siqi-Liu; Tobias Egner
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  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

Review 10.  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

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.