Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00426-016-0751-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The sequential congruency effect (SCE) is defined as the decrease in the congruency effect following incongruent trials compared to congruent trials. The effect of context repetition on the SCE was investigated in four experiments. In all the experiments, dynamic visual white noise was used as the contextual feature, and the number of congruent and incongruent trials was equal. In Experiments 1 and 2, by using eight-value Flanker and Stroop tasks, and excluding stimulus- and response-feature repetitions from the analysis, a SCE was observed in both context repetition and alternation conditions. In Experiment 3, using a two-value Flanker task, all trials consisted of stimulus- and response-feature repetitions, and a SCE was only observed in the context repetition condition. In Experiment 4, we used a four-value Flanker task, which enabled half of the trials to be partial/complete repetitions and the other half to be complete alternations. A SCE was observed in both context repetition and alternation conditions irrespective of the stimulus- and response-feature repetitions. This pattern of results suggested that the effects of context repetition on the SCE are subject to a number of factors including stimulus- and response-feature repetitions and contingency biases. When contingency information exists, the presence of stimulus- and response-feature repetitions was no longer effective in yielding effects of context repetition on the SCE. These findings suggest that the usage of information registered in episodic event representations including stimulus-, response- and contextual-features, control parameters and contingency biases results from interactions of a complex pattern of mechanisms, yet to be further explored.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Akçay, C., & Hazeltine, E. (2007). Conflict monitoring and feature overlap: Two sources of sequential modulations. Psychonomics Bulletin and Review, 14, 742–748. CrossRef
Bugg, J. M. (2014). Conflict-triggered top-down control: default mode, last resort, or no such thing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 567–587. PubMed
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edn. Hillsdale, New Jersey: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Colzato, L. S., Raffone, A., & Hommel, B. (2006). What do we learn from binding features? Evidence for multilevel feature integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 705–716. PubMed
Egner, T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 380–390. CrossRef
Frensch, P. A., Buchner, A., & Lin, J. (1994). Implicit learning of unique and ambiguous serial transitions in the presence and absence of a distractor task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 567–584.
Gaschler, R., Frensch, P. A., Cohen, A., & Wenke, D. (2012). Implicit sequence learning based on instructed task set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(5), 1389. PubMed
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, 480–506. CrossRef
Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216. CrossRef
Hommel, B. (2005). How much attention does an event file need? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1067–1082. PubMed
Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2004). Visual attention and the temporal dynamics of feature integration. Visual Cognition, 11, 483–521. CrossRef
Jiménez, L., & Méndez, C. (1999). Which attention is needed for implicit sequence learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(1), 236.
Kornblum, S. (1992). Dimensional overlap and dimensional relevance in stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 743–777). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450–452. PubMed
Rastle, K., & Davis, M. H. (2002). On the complexities of measuring naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(2), 307. PubMed
Schmidt J. R., Notebaert, W., & Van Den Bussche, E. (2015). Is conflict adaptation an illusion? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 172.
Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2009). Adaptation by binding: A learning account of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13, 252–257. CrossRef
- Repetition or alternation of context influences sequential congruency effect depending on the presence of contingency
Nart Bedin Atalay
Asli Bahar Inan
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg