Literature DB >> 35405421

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

Christina Bejjani1, Rick H Hoyle2, Tobias Egner3.   

Abstract

Cognitive control is guided by learning, as people adjust control to meet changing task demands. The two best-studied instances of "control-learning" are the enhancement of attentional task focus in response to increased frequencies of incongruent distracter stimuli, reflected in the list-wide proportion congruent (LWPC) effect, and the enhancement of switch-readiness in response to increased frequencies of task switches, reflected in the list-wide proportion switch (LWPS) effect. However, the latent architecture underpinning these adaptations in cognitive stability and flexibility - specifically, whether there is a single, domain-general, or multiple, domain-specific learners - is currently not known. To reveal the underlying structure of control-learning, we had a large sample of participants (N = 950) perform LWPC and LWPS paradigms, and afterwards assessed their explicit awareness of the task manipulations, as well as general cognitive ability and motivation. Structural equation modeling was used to evaluate several preregistered models representing different plausible hypotheses concerning the latent structure of control-learning. Task performance replicated standard LWPC and LWPS effects. Crucially, the model that best fit the data had correlated domain- and context-specific latent factors. Thus, people's ability to adapt their on-task focus and between-task switch-readiness to changing levels of demand was mediated by distinct (though correlated) underlying factors. Model fit remained good when accounting for speed-accuracy trade-offs, variance in individual cognitive ability and self-reported motivation, as well as self-reported explicit awareness of manipulations and the order in which different levels of demand were experienced. Implications of these results for the cognitive architecture of dynamic cognitive control are discussed.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attention; Cognitive control; Memory; Structural equation modeling

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35405421      PMCID: PMC9170285          DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2022.101474

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cogn Psychol        ISSN: 0010-0285            Impact factor:   3.746


  110 in total

1.  Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses.

Authors:  G Gratton; M G Coles; E Donchin
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1992-12

2.  Preparatory adjustment of cognitive control in the task switching paradigm.

Authors:  Gesine Dreisbach; Hilde Haider
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2006-04

3.  Individual differences in conflict-monitoring: testing means and covariance hypothesis about the Simon and the Eriksen Flanker task.

Authors:  Doris Keye; Oliver Wilhelm; Klaus Oberauer; Don van Ravenzwaaij
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2008-11-26

4.  The Timescale of Control: A Meta-Control Property that Generalizes across Tasks but Varies between Types of Control.

Authors:  Abhishek Dey; Julie M Bugg
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 3.282

5.  Towards an ontology of cognitive control.

Authors:  Agatha Lenartowicz; Donald J Kalar; Eliza Congdon; Russell A Poldrack
Journal:  Top Cogn Sci       Date:  2010-10

6.  A comparison of methods to combine speed and accuracy measures of performance: A rejoinder on the binning procedure.

Authors:  André Vandierendonck
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2017-04

7.  Should we stop thinking about inhibition? Searching for individual and age differences in inhibition ability.

Authors:  Alodie Rey-Mermet; Miriam Gade; Klaus Oberauer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2017-09-28       Impact factor: 3.051

Review 8.  Bayesian modeling of flexible cognitive control.

Authors:  Jiefeng Jiang; Katherine Heller; Tobias Egner
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 8.989

9.  Executive Functions and Impulsivity are Genetically Distinct and Independently Predict Psychopathology: Results from Two Adult Twin Studies.

Authors:  Naomi P Friedman; Alexander S Hatoum; Daniel E Gustavson; Robin P Corley; John K Hewitt; Susan E Young
Journal:  Clin Psychol Sci       Date:  2020-04-20

10.  Individual differences in response conflict adaptations.

Authors:  Doris Keye; Oliver Wilhelm; Klaus Oberauer; Birgit Stürmer
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-12-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.