Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
In the present study, we followed up on a recent report of two experiments in which the congruency sequence effect—the reduction of the congruency effect after incongruent relative to congruent trials in Stroop-like tasks—was observed without feature repetition or contingency learning confounds. Specifically, we further scrutinized these data to determine the plausibility of a temporal learning account as an alternative to the popular conflict adaptation account. To this end, we employed a linear mixed effects model to investigate the role of previous response time in producing the congruency sequence effect, because previous response time is thought to influence temporal learning. Interestingly, slower previous response times were associated with a reduced current-trial congruency effect, but only when the previous trial was congruent. An adapted version of the parallel episodic processing (PEP) model was able to fit these data if it was additionally assumed that attention “wanders” during different parts of the experiment (e.g., due to fatigue or other factors). Consistent with this assumption, the magnitude of the congruency effect was correlated across small blocks of trials. These findings demonstrate that a temporal learning mechanism provides a plausible account of the congruency sequence effect.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Burle, M. S., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., & Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2005). Dynamics of facilitation and interference in cue-priming and Simon tasks. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 619–641. CrossRef
Egner, T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 380–390. CrossRef
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 143–149. CrossRef
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506. CrossRef
Grice, G. R. (1968). Stimulus intensity and response evocation. Psychological Reviewer, 75, 359–373. CrossRef
Grosjean, M., Rosenbaum, D. A., & Elsinger, C. (2001). Timing and reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 256–272. CrossRef
Jensen, A. R. (1992). The importance of intraindividual variation in reaction time. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 869–881. CrossRef
Jiménez, L., & Méndez, A. (2012). It is not what you expect: dissociating conflict adaptation from expectancies in a Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 271–284. PubMed
Kinoshita, S., Mozer, M. C., & Forster, K. I. (2011). Dynamic adaptation to history of trial difficulty explains the effect of congruency proportion on masked priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 622–636. CrossRef
Lamers, M. J. M., & Roelofs, A. (2011). Attentional control adjustments in Eriksen and Stroop task performance can be independent of response conflict. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1056–1081. CrossRef
Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450–452. PubMed
Mordkoff, J. T. (2012). Observation: three reasons to avoid having half of the trials be congruent in a four-alternative forced-choice experiment on sequential modulation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 750–757. CrossRef
Ollman, R. T., & Billington, M. J. (1972). The deadline model for simple reaction times. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 311–336. CrossRef
Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: empirical clarification through distributional analyses. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common mechanisms in perception and action. Attention and performance (Vol. XIX, pp. 494–519). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, J. R. (2013a). Questioning conflict adaptation: proportion congruent and Gratton effects reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 615–630. CrossRef
Schmidt, J. R., De Schryver, M., & Weissman, D. H. (2014a). Removing the influence of feature repetitions on the congruency sequence effect: why regressing out confounds from a nested design will often fall short. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 2392–2402. PubMed
Schmidt, J. R., & Weissman, D. H. (2014). Congruency sequence effects without feature integration or contingency learning confounds. PLoS ONE, 9, e0102337.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies on interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. CrossRef
Weissman, D. H., Jiang, J., & Egner, T. (2014). Determinants of congruency sequence effects without learning and memory confounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 2022–2037. PubMed
- Congruency sequence effects and previous response times: conflict adaptation or temporal learning?
James R. Schmidt
Daniel H. Weissman
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg