Top

Gepubliceerd in:

28-10-2021 | Original Article

Interactive modulations between congruency sequence effects and validity sequence effects

Auteurs: Qian Qian, Yingna Li, Miao Song, Yong Feng, Yunfa Fu, Keizo Shinomori

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2022

Abstract

Sequential modulations have been found in both conflict and spatial orienting tasks. The former is called congruency sequence effects (CSE) and the latter is called validity sequence effects (VSE). Although the two effects have similar phenomenon descriptions, the relationship of the cognitive control mechanisms under the two effects is still unclear. Using a modified attentional network test (ANT), a flanker task and an arrow cueing task are integrated into a single task, which enables the test of the possible interactions between CSE and VSE. Since a confound-minimized design is used, the observed sequence effects cannot be attributed to the feature integration of low-level stimulus features or the contingency learning. It was found that the CSE are only significant when the arrow cue in preceding trial is invalid, and the VSE are only significant when the target letter in preceding trial is congruent with the distractor letters. The findings suggest that the sequential modulations during orienting and executive control of attention networks are highly interacted with each other, and the sequence effects in these networks are possibly controlled by a complex and multifaceted adaptive control mechanism.

vorige artikel When eyes beat lips: speaker gaze affects audiovisual integration in the McGurk illusion

volgende artikel On preventing attention capture: Is singleton suppression actually singleton suppression?

Abrahamse, E., Braem, S., Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2016). Grounding cognitive control in associative learning. Psychological Bulletin, 142(7), 693–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000047CrossRef

Akcay, 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

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0950-yCrossRefPubMed

Arora, S., Lawrence, M. A., & Klein, R. M. (2020). The attention network test database: ADHD and cross-cultural applications. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 388. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00388

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. https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1001925107CrossRef

Braem, S., Bugg, J. M., Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J. C., & Egner, T. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(9), 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.002

Braem, A., Duthoo, E. L., & 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.2014.01134CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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

Dignath, D., Johannsen, L., Hommel, B., & Kiesel, A. (2019). Reconciling cognitive-control and episodic-retrieval accounts of sequential conflict modulation: Binding of control-states into event-files. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(9), 1265–1270. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000673CrossRefPubMed

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

Duthoo, W., Abrahamse, E. L., Braem, S., Boehler, C. N., & Notebaert, W. (2014). The heterogeneous world of congruency sequence effects: An update. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1001. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01001CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(10), 374–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.001CrossRefPubMed

Egner, T. (2014). Creatures of habit (and control): A multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1247. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01247

Egner, T. (2017). Conflict adaptation: Past, present, and future of the congruency sequence effect as an index of cognitive control. In T. Egner (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of cognitive control. Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRef

Egner, T., Etkin, A., Gale, S., & Hirsch, J. (2008). Dissociable neural systems resolve conflict from emotional versus nonemotional distracters. Cerebral Cortex, 18, 1475–1484. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm179

Erel, H., & Levy, D. A. (2016). Orienting of visual attention in aging. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 69, 357–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.010CrossRefPubMed

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. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267 CrossRef

Fan, J., Byrne, J., Worden, M. S., Guise, K. G., Mccandliss, B. D., Fossella, J., & Posner, M. I. (2007). The relation of brain oscillations to attentional networks. Journal of Neuroscience the Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 27(23), 6197–6206. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1833-07.2007CrossRef

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.02.002CrossRef

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

Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze cueing of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 694–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gomez, C. M., Flores, A., Digiacomo, M. R., & Vazquez-Marrufo, M. (2009). Sequential P3 effects in a Posner’s spatial cueing paradigm: Trial-by-trial learning of the predictive value of the cue. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 69(2), 155–167PubMed

Gratton, G., Coles, M., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480–506. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-3445.121.4.480CrossRef

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

Ilaria, B., & Maria, C. (2019). Executive control of emotional conflict. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 359. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00359

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

Kim, C., Chung, C., & Kim, J. (2012). Conflict adjustment through domain-specific multiple cognitive control mechanisms. Brain Research, 1444, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.023CrossRefPubMed

Kim, S., & Cho, Y. S. (2014). Congruency sequence effect without feature integration and contingency learning. Acta Pathologica, Microbiologica, Et Immunologica Scandinavica, 149, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.03.004CrossRef

Kunde, W., & Wuhr, P. (2006). Sequential modulations of correspondence effects across spatial dimensions and tasks. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.023CrossRef

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 Pathologica, Microbiologica, Et Immunologica Scandinavica, 190, 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.08.012CrossRef

Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335558008248231CrossRef

Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ne.13.030190.000325CrossRefPubMed

Qian, Q., Wang, X., Song, M., & Wang, F. (2017). Gazes induce similar sequential effects as arrows in a target discrimination task. Paper presented at the international conference on intelligence science

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., Shinomori, K., & Song, M. (2012a). 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., Song, M., Shinomori, K., & Wang, F. (2012b). The functional role of alternation advantage in the sequence effect of symbolic cueing with nonpredictive arrow cues. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(7), 1430–1436. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0337-5CrossRef

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., Wang, F., Song, M., Feng, Y., & Shinomori, K. (2017). Spatial correspondence learning is critical for the sequence effects of symbolic cueing. Japanese Psychological Research, 59(3), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12148CrossRef

Qian, Q., Wang, F., Song, M., Feng, Y., & Shinomori, K. (2018). Sequence effects of the involuntary and the voluntary components of symbolic cueing. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 80(3), 662–668. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1472-9CrossRef

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. (2019). Evidence against conflict monitoring and adaptation: An updated review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 753–771. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1520-zCrossRef

Schmidt, J. R., & 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, J. R., & 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

Schumacher, E. H., & Hazeltine, E. (2016). Hierarchical task representation: Task files and response selection. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), 449–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416665085CrossRef

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/10.1037/0096-3445.121.1.15

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

Weissman, D. H, Hawks, Z. W, & Egner, T. (2015). Different levels of learning interact to shape the congruency sequence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory & Cognition, 42(4). https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000182

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

Whitehead, P. S., Brewer, G. A., & Blais, C. (2018). Are cognitive control processes reliable? Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 45(5). https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000632

Titel: Interactive modulations between congruency sequence effects and validity sequence effects
Auteurs: Qian Qian
Yingna Li
Miao Song
Yong Feng
Yunfa Fu
Keizo Shinomori
Publicatiedatum: 28-10-2021
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2022
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01612-4

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2022

Temporal integration of feature probability distributions

It is not always positive: emotional bias in young and older adults

Visual–haptic integration, action and embodiment in virtual reality

Training the attentional blink: subclinical depression decreases learning potential

The repetition of errors in recall: a review of four ‘fragmentation’ experiments

The effect of visually manipulating back size and morphology on back perception, body ownership, and attitudes towards self-capacity during a lifting task