Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-08-2024 | Research

Generalization of sequence effects from conflict to cueing tasks

Auteurs: Qian Qian, Jiawen Pan, Miao Song, Yingna Li, Jibin Yin, Yong Feng, Yunfa Fu, Keizo Shinomori

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 7/2024

Abstract

Cognitive control has been investigated in attentional conflict tasks for a long time. One representative phenomenon of adaptive cognitive control in these tasks is the congruency sequence effect (CSE), which means that a previous conflict will lead to reduced congruency effects at the current moment, reflecting increased control of attention toward the task at hand. One debating question is whether CSE can generalize between different conditions. Since a similar phenomenon (i.e., validity sequence effect, VSE) has been found in spatial cueing tasks, this study investigated whether the two sequential effects could generalize between each other. A cross-task sequence effect is found from previous flanker trials to current cueing trials when the task sets of the two tasks are either very similar or sufficiently dissimilar, and this C-VSE effect is influenced by the response mode of the experimental design. In addition, the VSE between trial n-2 and trial n is eliminated by the existence of an intermediate flanker trial, but the CSE between trial n-2 and trial n is still significant even with an intermediate cueing trial. Possible explanations of these findings are discussed. The findings suggest a close connection between orienting and executive control processes in attention networks and provide a new perspective and method for investigating the potential mechanisms of cognitive control.

vorige artikel The influence of reward and loss outcomes after free- and forced-tasks on voluntary task choice

volgende artikel Effect of additional tasks on the reaction time of braking responses in simulated car driving: beyond the PRP effect

Aczel, B., Kovacs, M., Bognar, M., Palfi, B., & Evans, T. R. (2021). Is there evidence for cross-domain congruency sequence effect? A replication of Kan et al. (2013). Royal Society Open Science, 8(3), 191353.

Akçay, C., & Hazeltine, E. (2008). Conflict adaptation depends on task structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(4), 958–973. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.4.958CrossRefPubMed

Akçay, C., & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Domain-specific conflict adaptation without feature repetitions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(3), 505–511. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0084-yCrossRef

Almeida, R., Faria-Jr, A., & Klein, R. M. (2021). On the origins and evolution of the attention network tests. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.028

Ansorge, U., Gozli, D. G., & Goller, F. (2019). Investigating the contribution of task and response repetitions to the sequential modulations of attentional cueing effects. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 83(6), 1251–1268.CrossRefPubMed

Bausenhart, K., Ulrich, R., & Miller, J. (2020). Effects of conflict trial proportion: A comparison of the Eriksen and Simon tasks. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 83. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02164-2

Boncompagni, I., & Casagrande, M. (2019). Executive control of emotional conflict. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 359. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00359CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624CrossRefPubMed

Boy, F., Husain, M., & Sumner, P. (2010). Unconscious inhibition separates two forms of cognitive control. Pnas, 107(24), 11134–11139.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Braem, S., Hickey, C., Duthoo, W., & Notebaert, W. (2014). Reward determines the context-sensitivity of cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(5), 1769–1778. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037554CrossRefPubMed

Braem, S., Bugg, J. M., Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J. C., & Egner, T. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Ences, 23(9), 769–783.CrossRef

Braem, Abrahamse, E. L., Duthoo, W., & Notebaert, W. (2014). What determines the specificity of conflict adaptation? A review, critical analysis, and proposed synthesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1134. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01134CrossRefPubMed

Buetti, S., & Kerzel, D. (2009). Conflicts during response selection affect response programming: Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(3), 816–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0011092CrossRefPubMed

Chen, A., Bailey, K., Tiernan, B. N., & West, R. (2011). Neural correlates of stimulus and response interference in a 2 – 1 mapping stroop task. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 80(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.02.012CrossRefPubMed

Chica, A. B., Martin-Arevalo, E., Botta, F., & Lupianez, J. (2014). The spatial orienting paradigm: How to design and interpret spatial attention experiments. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 40, 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.002CrossRefPubMed

Dodd, M. D., & Pratt, J. (2007). The effect of previous trial type on inhibition of return. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 71(4), 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0028-0CrossRefPubMed

Dudschig, C. (2022). Are control processes domain-general? A replication of ‘To adapt or not to adapt? The question of domain-general cognitive control’ (Kan et al. 2013). Royal Society Open Science, 9. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.210550

Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(10), 374–380.CrossRefPubMed

Egner, T., Delano, M., & Hirsch, J. (2007). Separate conflict-specific cognitive control mechanisms in the human brain. Neuroimage, 35, 940–948.CrossRefPubMed

Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.CrossRef

Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(3), 340–347. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892902317361886CrossRefPubMed

Fan, J., Gu, X., Guise, K. G., Liu, X., Fossella, J., Wang, H., & Posner, M. I. (2009). Testing the behavioral interaction and integration of attentional networks. Brain & Cognition, 70(2), 209–220.CrossRef

Freitas, A. L., & Clark, S. L. (2014). Generality and specificity in cognitive control: Conflict adaptation within and across selective-attention tasks but not across selective-attention and Simon tasks. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 79(1), 143–162.CrossRefPubMed

Funes, M. J., Lupiáñez, J., & Humphreys, G. (2010a). Analyzing the generality of conflict adaptation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(1), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017598CrossRefPubMed

Funes, M. J., Lupiáñez, J., & Humphreys, G. (2010b). Sustained vs. transient cognitive control: Evidence of a behavioral dissociation. Cognition, 114(3), 338–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.007CrossRefPubMed

Grant, L. D., Cookson, Savannah, L., & Weissman, D. H. (2020). Task sets serve as boundaries for the congruency sequence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance, 46(8).

Green, J. J., Gamble, M. L., & Woldorff, M. G. (2013). Resolving conflicting views: Gaze and arrow cues do not trigger rapid reflexive shifts of attention. Vis cogn, 21(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.775209CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hazeltine, E., Lightman, E., Schwarb, H., & Schumacher, E. H. (2011). The boundaries of sequential modulations: Evidence for set-level control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(6), 1898–1914.PubMed

Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0132-yCrossRefPubMed

Jongen, E. M., & Smulders, F. T. (2007). Sequence effects in a spatial cueing task: Endogenous orienting is sensitive to orienting in the preceding trial. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 71(5), 516–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-006-0065-3CrossRefPubMed

Kan, I. P., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Drummey, A. B., Nutile, L., Krupa, L., & Novick, J. M. (2013). To adapt or not to adapt: The question of domain-general cognitive control. Cognition, 129(3), 637–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.09.001CrossRefPubMed

Kim, S., & Cho, Y. S. (2014). Congruency sequence effect without feature integration and contingency learning. Acta Psychol (Amst), 149, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.03.004CrossRefPubMed

Kim, C., Chung, C., & Kim, J. (2012). Conflict adjustment through domain-specific multiple cognitive control mechanisms. Brain Research, 1444(none), 55–64.CrossRefPubMed

Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2006). Sequential modulations of correspondence effects across spatial dimensions and tasks. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 356–367.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(6), 1056–1081. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2010.523792CrossRef

Lee, J., & Cho, Y. S. (2013). Congruency sequence effect in cross-task context: Evidence for dimension-specific modulation. Acta Psychol (Amst), 144(3), 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.09.013CrossRefPubMed

Lee, Y. S., & Cho, Y. S. (2023). The congruency sequence effect of the Simon task in a cross-modality context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 49(9), 1221–1235. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001145CrossRefPubMed

Li, Q., Nan, W., Wang, K., & Liu, X. (2014). Independent Processing of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response conflicts. Plos One, 9(2), 1–6.

Lim, C. E., & Cho, Y. S. (2018). Determining the scope of control underlying the congruency sequence effect: Roles of stimulus-response mapping and response mode. Acta Psychol (Amst), 190, 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.08.012CrossRefPubMed

Lim, C. E., & Cho, Y. S. (2021). Response mode modulates the congruency sequence effect in spatial conflict tasks: Evidence from aimed-movement responses. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01376-3

Luo, C., Lupianez, J., Funes, J., Maria, & Fu, X. (2013). Reduction of the spatial Stroop Effect by Peripheral Cueing as a function of the Presence/Absence of Placeholders. PLOSONE, 8(7), e69456.CrossRef

Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5), 450–452. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1051CrossRefPubMed

Nieuwenhuis, S., Stins, J. F., Posthuma, D., Polderman, T. J. C., Boomsma, D. I., & De Geus, E. J. (2006). Accounting for sequential trial effects in the flanker task: Conflict adaptation or associative priming? Memory & Cognition, 34(6), 1260–1272.CrossRef

Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2008). Cognitive control acts locally. Cognition, 106(2), 1071–1080. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.011CrossRefPubMed

Parris, B. A., Hasshim, N., Wadsley, M., Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2022). The loci of Stroop effects: A critical review of methods and evidence for levels of processing contributing to color-word Stroop effects and the implications for the loci of attentional selection. Psychological Research, 86(4), 1029–1053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01554-xCrossRefPubMed

Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3–25.CrossRefPubMed

Qian, Q., Shinomori, K., & Song, M. (2012). Sequence effects by non-predictive arrow cues. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 76(3), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0339-2CrossRefPubMed

Qian, Q., Wang, F., Feng, Y., & Song, M. (2015). Spatial organisation between targets and cues affects the sequence effect of symbolic cueing. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(07), 855–865. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1048249CrossRef

Qian, Q., Pan, J., Song, M., Feng, Y., & Shinomori, K. (2020). Feature integration is not the whole story of the sequence effects of symbolic cueing. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 32(7), 645–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2020.1817928CrossRef

Qian, Q., Li, Y., Song, M., Feng, Y., Fu, Y., & Shinomori, K. (2022). Interactive modulations between congruency sequence effects and validity sequence effects. Psychological Research, 86(6), 1944–1957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01612-4CrossRefPubMed

Ridderinkhof, R. K. (2002). Micro- and macro-adjustments of task set: Activation and suppression in conflict tasks. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 66(4), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0104-7CrossRefPubMed

Ridderinkhof, K., Richard, Wylie, S. A., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., Bashore, Theodore, R., & van der Molen, M. W. (2021). The arrow of time: Advancing insights into action control from the arrow version of the Eriksen flanker task. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 83(2), 700–721. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-020-02167-zCrossRef

Schlaghecken, F., Refaat, M., & Maylor, E. A. (2011). Multiple systems for cognitive control: Evidence from a hybrid prime-Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(5), 1542–1553. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024327CrossRefPubMed

Schmidt, J. R., & De Houwer, J. (2011). Now you see it, now you don’t: Controlling for contingencies and stimulus repetitions eliminates the Gratton effect. Acta Psychologica, 138(1), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.06.002CrossRefPubMed

Schmidt, & Weissman, D. H. (2014). Congruency sequence effects without feature integration or contingency learning confounds. PLoS One, 9(7), e102337. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102337CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Schuch, S., Dignath, D., Steinhauser, M., & Janczyk, M. (2018). Monitoring and control in multitasking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1512-zCrossRef

Schumacher, E. H., & Hazeltine, E. (2016). Hierarchical Task representation: Task Files and Response Selection. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), 449–454.CrossRef

Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory s-r compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(3), 300–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020586CrossRefPubMed

Stroop, J. R. (1992). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.121.1.15CrossRef

Tomat, M., Wendt, Mike, Luna-Rodriguez, A., & Jacobsen, T. (2021). Adjustments of selective attention to response conflict – controlling for perceptual conflict, target-distractor identity, and congruency level sequence pertaining to the congruency sequence effect. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 83(6), 2531–2550. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02294-1CrossRef

Ullsperger, M., Bylsma, L. M., & Botvinick, M. M. (2005). The conflict adaptation effect: It’s not just priming. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(4), 467–472.CrossRef

Verbruggen, F., Notebaert, W., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Stimulus- and response-conflict-induced cognitive control in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 328–333. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193852CrossRef

Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115(2), 518–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.518CrossRefPubMed

Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2009). Adaptation by binding: A learning account of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(6), 252–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.02.007CrossRefPubMed

Verguts, T., Notebaert, W., Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2011). Post-conflict slowing: Cognitive adaptation after conflict processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0016-2CrossRef

Weissman, D., Egner, T., Hawks, Z., & Link, J. (2015). The congruency sequence effect emerges when the distracter precedes the target. Acta Psychologica, 156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.01.003

Wendt, M., Kluwe, R. H., & Peters, A. (2006). Sequential modulations of interference evoked by processing task-irrelevant stimulus features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 644–667. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.644CrossRefPubMed

White, C. N., Ratcliff, R., & Starns, J. J. (2011). Diffusion models of the flanker task: Discrete versus gradual attentional selection. Cognitive Psychology, 63(4), 210–238.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wühr, P., Duthoo, W., & Notebaert, W. (2015). Generalizing attentional control across dimensions and tasks: Evidence from transfer of proportion-congruent effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(4), 779–801.CrossRef

Titel: Generalization of sequence effects from conflict to cueing tasks
Auteurs: Qian Qian
Jiawen Pan
Miao Song
Yingna Li
Jibin Yin
Yong Feng
Yunfa Fu
Keizo Shinomori
Publicatiedatum: 01-08-2024
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 7/2024
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-02014-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2024

Modeling body size information within weight labels using probability distributions

Research

Impact of aging on crossmodal attention switching

Open Access
Research

Different grasping experiences affect mapping effects but not correspondence effects between stimulus size and response location

Research

The dual nature of working memory deficits: methamphetamine abusers have more impaired social working memory capacity than canonical working memory capacity

Research

The ownership memory self-reference effect shifts recognition criterion but not recognition sensitivity

Open Access
Research

Action inhibition in a sport-specific paradigm: examining the limits of action control in basketball

Open Access
Research