Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Stimulus–response (S–R) associations consist of two independent components: Stimulus–classification (S–C) and stimulus–action (S–A) associations. Here, we examined whether these S–C and S–A associations were modulated by cognitive control operations. In two item-specific priming experiments, we systematically manipulated the proportion of trials in which item-specific S–C and/or S–A mappings repeated or switched between the single encoding (prime) and single retrieval (probe) instance of each stimulus (i.e., each stimulus appeared only twice). Thus, we assessed the influence of a list-level proportion switch manipulation on the strength of item-specific S–C and S–A associations. Participants responded slower and committed more errors when item-specific S–C or S–A mappings switched rather than repeated between prime and probe (i.e., S–C/S–A switch effects). S–C switch effects were larger when S–C repetitions rather than switches were frequent on the list-level. Similarly, S–A switch effects were modulated by S–A switch proportion. Most importantly, our findings rule out contingency learning and temporal learning as explanations of the observed results and point towards a conflict adaptation mechanism that selectively adapts the encoding and/or retrieval for each S–R component. Finally, we outline how cognitive control over S–R associations operates in the context of item-specific priming.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Aben, B., Verguts, T., & Van den Bussche, E. (2017). Beyond trial-by-trial adaptation: A quantification of the time scale of cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 509–517.
Andreadis, N., & Quinlan, P. T. (2010). Task switching under predictable and unpredictable circumstances. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 1776–1790.
Arrington, C. M., & Reiman, K. M. (2015). Task frequency influences stimulus-driven effects on task selection during voluntary task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1089–1095.
Atalay, N. B., & Misirlisoy, M. (2012). Can contingency learning alone account for item-specific control? Evidence from within-and between-language ISPC effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1578–1590.
Blais, C., & Bunge, S. (2010). Behavioral and neural evidence for item- specific performance monitoring. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2758–2767.
Botvinick, M. M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: Reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 356–366.
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652.
Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: An update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 539–546.
Brady, T. F., Konkle, T., Alvarez, G. A., & Oliva, A. (2008). Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 14325–14329.
Bugg, J. M., & Chanani, S. (2011). List-wide control is not entirely elusive: Evidence from picture-word Stroop. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 930–936.
Bugg, J. M., & Crump, M. J. (2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: A review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 367.
Bugg, J. M., & Hutchison, K. A. (2013). Converging evidence for control of color-word Stroop interference at the item level. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 433–449.
Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Toth, J. P. (2008). Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1484–1494.
Bugg, J. M., McDaniel, M. A., Scullin, M. K., & Braver, T. S. (2011). Revealing list-level control in the Stroop task by uncovering its benefits and a cost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1595–1606.
Chiu, Y. C., & Egner, T. (2017). Cueing cognitive flexibility: Item-specific learning of switch readiness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1950–1960.
Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2007). The representation of instructions in working memory leads to autonomous response activation: Evidence from the first trials in the flanker paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1140–1154.
Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2009). The representation of instructions operates like a prepared reflex: Flanker compatibility effects found in first trial following S–R instructions. Experimental Psychology, 56, 128–133.
Crump, M. J. C., Gong, Z., & Milliken, B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 316–321.
Crump, M. J., & Logan, G. D. (2010). Contextual control over task-set retrieval. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 2047–2053.
Crump, M. J. C., & Milliken, B. (2009). The flexibility of context-specific control: Evidence for context-driven generalization of item-specific control settings. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1523–1532.
Dobbins, I. G., Schnyer, D. M., Verfaellie, M., & Schacter, D. L. (2004). Cortical activity reductions during repetition priming can result from rapid response learning. Nature, 428, 316–319.
Druey, M., & Hübner, R. (2008a). Effects of stimulus features and instruction on response coding, selection, and inhibition: Evidence from repetition effects under task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1573–1600.
Druey, M., & Hübner, R. (2008b). Response inhibition under task switching: Its strength depends on the amount of task-irrelevant response activation. Psychological Research, 72, 515–527.
Duthoo, W., De Baene, W., Wühr, P., & Notebaert, W. (2012). When predictions take control: The effect of task predictions on task switching performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 282.
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.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
Grzyb, K. R., & Hübner, R. (2013). Strategic modulation of response inhibition in task-switching. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 545.
Hazeltine, E., & Mordkoff, J. T. (2014). Resolved but not forgotten: Stroop conflict dredges up the past. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1327.
Henson, R. N., Eckstein, D., Waszak, F., Frings, C., & Horner, A. J. (2014). Stimulus–response bindings in priming. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 376–384.
Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.
Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500.
Hommel, B., Memelink, J., Zmigrod, S., & Colzato, L. S. (2014). Attentional control of the creation and retrieval of stimulus–response bindings. Psychological Research, 78, 520–538.
Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2009). Bindings between stimuli and multiple response codes dominate long-lag repetition priming in speeded classification tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 757–779.
Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2011). Stimulus–response bindings code both abstract and specific representations of stimuli: Evidence from a classification priming design that reverses multiple levels of response representation. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1457–1471.
Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2012). Incongruent abstract stimulus–response bindings result in response interference: fMRI and EEG evidence from visual object classification priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24, 760–773.
Hsu, Y. F., & Waszak, F. (2012). Stimulus-classification traces are dominant in response learning. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 86, 262–268.
Hübner, R., & Druey, M. D. (2006). Response execution, selection, or activation: What is sufficient for response-related repetition effects under task shifting? Psychological Research, 70, 245–261.
Hübner, R., & Druey, M. (2008). Multiple response codes play specific roles in response selection and inhibition under task switching. Psychological Research, 72, 415–424.
Hutchison, K. A. (2011). The interactive effects of listwide control, item-based control, and working memory capacity on Stroop performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 851–860.
Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 634–644.
Jarosz, A. F., & Wiley, J. (2014). What are the odds? A practical guide to computing and reporting Bayes factors. The Journal of Problem Solving, 7, 2.
Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W., Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303, 1023–1026.
Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874.
King, J. A., Korb, F. M., & Egner, T. (2012). Priming of control: Implicit contextual cuing of top-down attentional set. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 8192–8200.
Kliegl, R., Grabner, E., Rolfs, M., & Engbert, R. (2004). Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 262–284.
Koch, I. (2005). Sequential task predictability in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 107–112.
Koch, I. (2008). Instruction effects in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 448–452.
Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 557–583.
Koch, I., Schuch, S., Vu, K. P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2011). Response-repetition effects in task switching—Dissociating effects of anatomical and spatial response discriminability. Acta Psychologica, 136, 399–404.
Le Pelley, M. E. (2004). The role of associative history in models of associative learning: A selective review and a hybrid model. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B, 57(3b), 193–243.
Leboe, J. P., Wong, J., Crump, M., & Stobbe, K. (2008). Probe-specific proportion task repetition effects on switching costs. Perception and Psychophysics, 70, 935–945.
Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2018). Automatic effects of instructions do not require the intention to execute these instructions. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 30, 108–121.
Liefooghe, B., Wenke, D., & De Houwer, J. (2012). Instruction-based task-rule congruency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1325–1335.
Lindsay, D. S., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 219–234.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.
Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1–35.
Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7(3), 166–174.
Love, J., Selker, R., Verhagen, J., Marsman, M., Gronau, Q. F., Jamil, T., Smira, M., Epskamp, S., Wild, A., Morey, R., Rouder, J. & Wagenmakers, E.J. (2015). JASP [Computer software].
Lowe, D. G., & Mitterer, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attentions in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 684–700.
Meiran, N., Cole, M. W., & Braver, T. S. (2012). When planning results in loss of control: Intention-based reflexivity and working-memory. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–10.
Meiran, M., Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2017). Powerful instructions: Automaticity without practice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 509–514.
Meiran, N., Pereg, M., Kessler, Y., Cole, M. W., & Braver, T. S. (2015a). The power of instructions: Proactive configuration of stimulus–response translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 768–786.
Meiran, N., Pereg, M., Kessler, Y., Cole, M. W., & Braver, T. S. (2015b). Reflexive activation of newly instructed stimulus–response rules: Evidence from lateralized readiness potentials in no-go trials. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15, 365–373.
Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.
Moutsopoulou, K., & Waszak, F. (2012). Across-task priming revisited: Response and task conflicts disentangled using ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 367–374.
Moutsopoulou, K., & Waszak, F. (2013). Durability of classification and action learning: differences revealed using ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. Experimental Brain Research, 226, 373–382.
Moutsopoulou, K., Yang, Q., Desantis, A., & Waszak, F. (2015). Stimulus-classification and stimulus-action associations: Effects of repetition learning and resilience. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1744–1757.
Nessler, D., Friedman, D., & Johnson, R., Jr. (2012). A new account of the effect of probability on task switching: ERP evidence following the manipulation of switch probability, cue informativeness and predictability. Biological Psychology, 91, 245–262.
Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2007). Dissociating conflict adaptation from feature integration: A multiple regression approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1256–1260.
Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditional reflexes: an investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. London: Wexford University Press.
Pfeuffer, C. U., Hosp, T., Kimmig, E., Moutsopoulou, K., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2018a). Defining stimulus representation in stimulus–response associations formed on the basis of task execution and verbal codes. Psychological Research, 82, 744–758.
Pfeuffer, C. U., Moutsopoulou, K., Pfister, R., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2017). The power of words: On item-specific stimulus–response associations formed in the absence of action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 328–347.
Pfeuffer, C. U., Moutsopoulou, K., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2018b). Multiple priming instances increase the impact of practice-based but not verbal code-based stimulus-response associations. Acta Psychologica, 184, 100–109.
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.
Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Verhagen, J., Swagman, A. R., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2017). Bayesian analysis of factorial designs. Psychological Methods, 22, 304–321.
Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225–237.
Schmidt, J. R. (2013a). Temporal learning and list-level proportion congruency: Conflict adaptation or learning when to respond? PLoS ONE, 8, e0082320.
Schmidt, J. R. (2013b). The parallel episodic processing (PEP) model: Dissociating contingency and conflict adaptation in the item-specific proportion congruent paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 142, 119–126.
Schmidt, J. R. (2014a). Contingencies and attentional capture: The importance of matching stimulus informativeness in the item-specific proportion congruent task. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 540.
Schmidt, J. R. (2014b). List-level transfer effects in temporal learning: Further complications for the list-level proportion congruent effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 373–385.
Schmidt, J. R., & Besner, D. (2008). The Stroop effect: Why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 514–523.
Schmidt, J. R., Lemercier, C., & De Houwer, J. (2014). Context-specific temporal learning with non-conflict stimuli: Proof-of-principle for a learning account of context-specific proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1241.
Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2004). The costs of changing the representation of action: Response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 566–582.
Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. Advances in Psychology, 65, 31–86.
Steinhauser, M., Hübner, R., & Druey, M. (2009). Adaptive control of response preparedness in task switching. Neuropsychologia, 47, 1826–1835.
Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115, 518–525.
Waszak, F. (2010). Across-task long-term priming: Interaction of task readiness and automatic retrieval. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1414–1429.
Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus–task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 361–413.
Wendt, M., & Luna-Rodriguez, A. (2009). Conflict-frequency affects flanker interference: Role of stimulus-ensemble-specific practice and flanker-response contingencies. Experimental Psychology, 56, 206–217.
Wendt, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., Kiesel, A., & Jacobsen, T. (2013). Conflict adjustment devoid of perceptual selection. Acta Psychologica, 144, 31–39.
Whitehead, P. S., & Egner, T. (2018). Cognitive control over prospective task-set interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44, 741–755.
- Execution-based and verbal code-based stimulus–response associations: proportion manipulations reveal conflict adaptation processes in item-specific priming
Christina U. Pfeuffer
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
An International Journal of Perception, Attention, Memory, and Action
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772