Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-11-2009 | Original Article

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

Auteurs: Doris Keye, Oliver Wilhelm, Klaus Oberauer, Don van Ravenzwaaij

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2009

Abstract

Conflict and context slow-down have been proposed as indicators of a conflict-monitoring system that initiates cognitive control to resolve conflicts in information processing. We investigated individual differences in conflict-monitoring and their associations with working memory (WM) and impulsivity. A total of 150 adults completed a Simon and an Eriksen flanker task, together with measures of WM and impulsivity. On both tasks, responses were slower and less accurate on incompatible than on compatible trials (conflict effect), and the conflict effect was larger when the preceding trial was compatible than when it was incompatible (context effect). Stimulus repetition did not explain the context effect. Individual differences could be attributed to three separable factors for each task: general speeded performance, conflict effect, and context effect. Evidence for across-task generality of these factors was sparse. Associations of these factors with impulsivity were weak at best. WM was correlated with general speed, and also with some but not all factors reflecting conflict-related processes.

vorige artikel Electrophysiological evidence for cognitive control during conflict processing in visual spatial attention

volgende artikel Lifespan development of stimulus-response conflict cost: similarities and differences between maturation and senescence

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

The RMSEA will not be considered for evaluating fit here, because of its known sensitivity to sample size and number of variables leading to a tendency to overreject models (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kenny & McCoach, 2003).

When two models are nested, that is, one is a special case of the other obtained by fixing some of the free parameters, the difference in χ² can be used to assess whether the less constrained model (i.e., the model with more free parameters) has a significantly better fit. This difference, expressed as Δχ², is evaluated for significance, using the difference of df of the two models as df (this difference is written Δdf). A significant Δχ² is evidence that the freely estimated parameters in the less constrained model differ significantly from their fixed values in the more constrained model, and the less constrained model is preferred. Otherwise, the more constrained model is preferred because it is more parsimonious.

Fit for a separate measurement model of WM cannot be reported because with three indicators the measurement model is just identified with 0 degrees of freedom.

In investigations testing many correlations, some can become significant merely by chance. It is not straightforward to control this alpha inflation statistically (e.g., by Bonferroni correction) because each correlation speaks to a different hypothesis. Thus, each theoretically predicted correlation is tested only once, and that test should not be penalized by Bonferroni correction—the fact that other hypotheses are tested in the same study does not inflate the alpha error probability for a given prediction. At the same time, there are plenty of opportunities for non-predicted effects to emerge by chance. Therefore, non-predicted correlations, even when statistically significant, must be interpreted with caution.

Barch, D. M., Braver, T. S., Akbudak, E., Conturo, T., Ollinger, J., & Snyder, A. (2001). Anterior cingulate cortex and response conflict: Effects of response modality and processing domain. Cerebral Cortex, 11, 837–848.PubMedCrossRef

Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 625–652.CrossRef

Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: An update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 539–546.PubMedCrossRef

Botvinick, M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature, 402, 179.PubMedCrossRef

Bush, G., Frazier, J. A., Rauch, S. L., Seidman, L. J., Whalen, P. J., Jenike, M. A., et al. (1999). Anterior cingulate cortex dysfunction in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder revealed by fMRI and the Counting Stroop. Biological Psychiatry, 45, 1542–1552.PubMedCrossRef

Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.PubMed

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Colom, R., Flores-Mendoza, C., & Rebollo, I. (2003). Working memory and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 33–39.

Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. (1996). Individual differences in working memory capacity: More evidence for a general capacity theory. Memory, 4, 577–590.PubMedCrossRef

Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 547–552.CrossRef

Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 769–786.PubMed

De Jong, R., Liang, Ch-Ch, & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731–750.PubMedCrossRef

Engle, R. W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 19–23.CrossRef

Engle, R. W., & Kane, M. J. (2004). Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press.

Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999a). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. Cambridge: University Press.

Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999b). Working memory, short-term memory and general fluid intelligence: A latent variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331.CrossRef

Enticott, P. G., Ogloff, J. R. P., & Bradshaw, J. L. (2006). Associations between laboratory measures of executive inhibitory control and self-reported impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 285–294.CrossRef

Freitas, A. L., Bahar, M., Yang, Sh, & Banai, R. (2007). Contextual adjustments in cognitive control across tasks. Psychological Science, 18, 1040–1043.PubMedCrossRef

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

Heathcote, A., Popiel, S. J., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (1991). Analysis of response time distributions: An example using the stroop task. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 340–347.CrossRef

Heitz, R., & Engle, R. E. (2007). Focusing the spotlight: Individual differences in visual attention control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 217–240.CrossRef

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRef

Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70.CrossRef

Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 637–671.

Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working memory capacity: Individual differences in memory span and the control of visual orienting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169–183.CrossRef

Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Variation in working memory capacity as variation in executive attention and control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & N. J. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory. NY: Oxford.

Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: A latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 133, 189–217.PubMedCrossRef

Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10, 333–351.CrossRef

Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W, I. I. I., Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303, 1023–1026.PubMedCrossRef

Keye, D., Wilhelm, O., & Oberauer, K. (in press) A German Adaptation of the UPPS impulsive behavior scales: Structure and correlates. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.

Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.PubMedCrossRef

Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2006). Sequential modulations of correspondence effects across spatial dimensions and tasks. Memory and Cognition, 34, 356–367.

Kyllonen, P. C., & Christal, R. E. (1990). Reasoning ability is (little more than) working-memory capacity? Intelligence, 14, 389–433.CrossRef

Kyllonen, P. C. (1996). Is working memory capacity Spearman’s g? In I. Dennis & P. Tapsfield (Eds.), Human abilities: Their nature and measurement. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

MacCallum, R. C., Wegener, D. T., Uchino, B. N., & Fabrigar, L. R. (1993). The problem of equivalent models in applications of covariance structure analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 185–199.PubMedCrossRef

Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450–452.PubMed

McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Notebaert, W., Gevers, W., Verbruggen, F., & Liefooghe, B. (2006). Top–down and bottom–up sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 112–117.PubMed

Oberauer, K., Schulze, R., Wilhelm, O., & Süß, H.-M. (2005). Working memory and intelligence–their correlation and their relation: A comment on Ackerman, Beier, and Boyle (2004). Psychological Bulletin, 131, 61–65.PubMedCrossRef

Oberauer, K., Süß, H.-M., Schulze, R., Wilhelm, O., & Wittman, W. W. (2000). Working memory capacity—facets of a cognitive ability construct. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1017–1045.CrossRef

Oberauer, K., Süß, H.-M., Wilhelm, O., & Sander, R. (2007). Individual differences in working memory capacity and reasoning ability. In A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. Towse (Eds.), Variation in Working Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Osaka, M., Osaka, N., Kondo, H., Morishita, M., Fukuyama, H., Aso, T., et al. (2003). The neural basis of individual differences in working memory capacity: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 18, 789–797.PubMedCrossRef

Peterson, B. S., Kane, M. J., Alexander, G. M., Lacadie, C., Skudlarski, P., Leung, H.-C., May, J., & Gore, J. C. (2000). An event-related functional MRI study comparing interference effects in the Simon and Stroop tasks. Cognitive Brain Research, 13, 427–440.

Pierce, Ch A, Block, R. A., & Aguinis, H. (2004). Cautionary note on reporting Eta-squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 916–924.CrossRef

Ratcliff, R., & Murdock, B. B. (1976). Retrieval processes in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 83, 190–214.CrossRef

Shah, P., & Miyake, A. (1996). The separability of working memory resources for spatial thinking and language processing: An individual differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 4–27.CrossRef

Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174–176.PubMedCrossRef

Stahl, J., & Gibbons, H. (2007). Dynamics of response-conflict monitoring and individual differences in response control and behavioral control: An electrophysiological investigation using a stop-signal task. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118, 581–596.PubMedCrossRef

Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schroter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345–1363.PubMedCrossRef

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

Vallesi, A., Mapelli, D., Schiff, S., Amodio, P., & Umilta, C. (2005). Horizontal and vertical Simon effect: Different underlying mechanisms? Cognition, 96, 33–43.CrossRef

van Veen, V., Cohen, J. D., Botvinick, M. M., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2001). Anterior Cingulate Cortex, Conflict Monitoring, and Levels of Processing. NeuroImage, 14, 1302–1308.PubMedCrossRef

Wascher, E., Schatz, U., Kuder, T., & Verleger, R. (2001). Validity and boundary conditions of automatic response activation in the Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 27, 731–751.PubMedCrossRef

Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 669–689.CrossRef

Wilhelm, O., & Oberauer, K. (2006). Why are reasoning ability and working memory capacity related to mental speed? An investigation of stimulus-response compatibility in choice reaction time tasks. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 18–50.CrossRef

Wühr, P., & Ansorge, U. (2005). Exploring trial-by-trial modulations of the Simon effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 705–731.

Yeung, N., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural basis of error detection: conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity. Psychological Review, 111, 931–959.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Individual differences in conflict-monitoring: testing means and covariance hypothesis about the Simon and the Eriksen Flanker task
Auteurs: Doris Keye
Oliver Wilhelm
Klaus Oberauer
Don van Ravenzwaaij
Publicatiedatum: 01-11-2009
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2009
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0188-9

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2009

Conflicts as signals: bridging the gap between conflict detection and cognitive control

Does familiarity or conflict account for performance in the word-stem completion task? Evidence from behavioural and event-related-potential data

Precueing imminent conflict does not override sequence-dependent interference adaptation

Conflicts between expected and actually performed behavior lead to verbal report of incidentally acquired sequential knowledge

Lifespan development of stimulus-response conflict cost: similarities and differences between maturation and senescence

The elusive link between conflict and conflict adaptation