Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Encountering a cognitive conflict not only slows current performance, but it can also affect subsequent performance, in particular when the conflict is induced with bivalent stimuli (i.e., stimuli with relevant features for two different tasks) or with incongruent trials (i.e., stimuli with relevant features for two response alternatives). The post-conflict slowing following bivalent stimuli, called “bivalency effect”, affects all subsequent stimuli, irrespective of whether the subsequent stimuli share relevant features with the conflict stimuli. To date, it is unknown whether the conflict induced by incongruent stimuli results in a similar post-conflict slowing. To investigate this, we performed six experiments in which participants switched between two tasks. In one task, incongruent stimuli appeared occasionally; in the other task, stimuli shared no feature with the incongruent trials. The results showed an initial performance slowing that affected all tasks after incongruent trials. On further trials, however, the slowing only affected the task sharing features with the conflict stimuli. Therefore, the post-conflict slowing following incongruent stimuli is first general and then becomes conflict-specific across trials. These findings are discussed within current task switching and cognitive control accounts.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (1999). Task-switching: Positive and negative priming of task-set. In G. W. Humphrey, J. Duncan, & A. Treisman (Eds.), Attention, space and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 273–296). New York: Oxford University Press.
Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (2000). Task-switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.), Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII (pp. 35–70). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Braem, S., 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,. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01134.
Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2008). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. Towse (Eds.), Variation in Working Memory (pp. 76–106). Oxford University Press.
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(2), 316–321. CrossRef
Duthoo, W., Abrahamse, E. L., Braem, S., Boehler, C. N., & Notebaert, W. (2014a). The heterogeneous world of congruency sequence effects: An update. Frontiers in Psychology,. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01001.
Egner, T., Ely, S., & Grinband, J. (2010). Going, going, gone: characterizing the time-course of congruency sequence effects. Cognition, 1, 154. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00154.
Funes, M. J., Lupiáñez, J., & Humphreys, G. (2010b). Sustained vs. transient cognitive control: Evidence of a behavioral dissociation. Cognition, 114(3), 338–347. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.007.
Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII (pp. 331–355). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480–506. CrossRef
Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 638–644. CrossRef
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(2), 219–234. PubMed
McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(7), S127–S144. CrossRef
Meier, B., Rey-Mermet, A., & Rothen, N. (2015). Turning univalent stimuli bivalent: Synesthesia can cause cognitive conflict in task switching. Cognitive Neuroscience,. doi: 10.1080/17588928.2015.1017449.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231. doi: 10.1037/0096-3418.104.22.168.
- Post-conflict slowing after incongruent stimuli: from general to conflict-specific
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg