Top

Gepubliceerd in:

26-06-2020 | Original Article

Response mode modulates the congruency sequence effect in spatial conflict tasks: evidence from aimed-movement responses

Auteurs: Chae Eun Lim, Yang Seok Cho

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2021

Abstract

The present study investigated how response mode determines the specificity of control responsible for the congruency sequence effect (CSE), especially when conflict arises from spatial dimensions. Horizontal and vertical Simon tasks were presented in turn, while response mode (Experiment 1) or task-relevant stimulus dimension (Experiment 2) was manipulated. All responses were made by aimed movements to make the relative salience of the horizontal and vertical dimensions equivalent regardless of response mode. The confound-minimized CSEs were significant only when the two tasks shared the same response mode, which did not vary as a function of task-relevant stimulus dimension. This result suggests that response mode determines the scope of control, as it reconfigures the representations of the task-irrelevant spatial dimensions (i.e., the horizontal and vertical dimensions), which is corroborated by distributional analyses. This response mode-specific control was also consistently found for the horizontal and vertical arrow versions of flanker-compatibility tasks in Experiment 3, in which conflict does not directly arise from the response dimension. Furthermore, the current findings revealed that the CSEs were more evident in movement times than in initiation times, which provides new insight on how control inhibits the response activated by a task-irrelevant stimulus dimension, especially at a motor level.

vorige artikel When more is less in financial decision-making: financial literacy magnifies framing effects

volgende artikel Temporal error monitoring with directional error magnitude judgements: a robust phenomenon with no effect of being watched

To prevent participants from explicitly selecting the correct response after releasing home key (Rubichi & Pellicano, 2004; Smith & Carew, 1987), the current study minimized the possibility of delayed response selection in the following ways. First, participants were explicitly instructed to release the home key after they decided which direction key to press. Also, the target disappeared from the screen as soon as the home key was released, which minimized the possibility that participants decided the response key after initiating movement (Smith & Carew, 1987). Finally, only those trials, of which both IT and MT were not too fast or slow from its conditional mean, were analyzed. In this way, the trials where the faster IT was traded for slower MT could be excluded from the analyses.

Adam, J. J. (1994). Manipulating the spatial arrangement of stimuli in a precuing task. Acta Psychologica, 85(3), 183–202.PubMedCrossRef

Adam, J. J., Hommel, B., & Umiltà, C. (2003). Preparing for perception and action (I): The role of grouping in the response-cuing paradigm. Cognitive Psychology, 46(3), 302–358.PubMedCrossRef

Akçay, Ç., & Hazeltine, E. (2008). Conflict adaptation depends on task structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(4), 958–973.PubMed

Ansorge, U., & Wühr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(2), 365–377.PubMed

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.PubMedCrossRef

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, 5, 1134.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Braem, S., Bugg, J. M., Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J., Weissman, D. H., Notebaert, W., et al. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(9), 769–783.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Braem, S., Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2011). Conflict adaptation by means of associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(5), 1662–1666.PubMed

Buetti, S., & Kerzel, D. (2008). Time course of the Simon effect in pointing movements for horizontal, vertical, and acoustic stimuli: Evidence for a common mechanism. Acta Psychologica, 129(3), 420–428.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMed

Burle, B., Possamaï, C. A., Vidal, F., Bonnet, M., & Hasbroucq, T. (2002). Executive control in the Simon effect: An electromyographic and distributional analysis. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 66(4), 324–336.PubMedCrossRef

Calderon, C. B., Gevers, W., & Verguts, T. (2018). The unfolding action model of initiation times, movement times, and movement paths. Psychological Review, 125(5), 785–805.PubMedCrossRef

De Jong, R., Liang, C.-C., & 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(4), 731–750.PubMed

Dignath, D., & Eder, A. B. (2015). Stimulus conflict triggers behavioral avoidance. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 15(4), 822–836.CrossRef

Dignath, D., Wirth, R., Kühnhausen, J., Gawrilow, C., Kunde, W., & Kiesel, A. (2019). Motivation drives conflict adaptation. Motivation Science, 6(1), 84–89.CrossRef

Doucet, C., & Stelmack, R. M. (1999). The effect of response execution on P3 latency, reaction time, and movement time. Psychophysiology, 36(3), 351–363.PubMedCrossRef

Dreisbach, G. (2012). Mechanisms of cognitive control: The functional role of task rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 227–231.CrossRef

Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nature Neuroscience, 8(12), 1784–1790.PubMedCrossRef

Erb, C. D., & Marcovitch, S. (2018). Deconstructing the Gratton effect: Targeting dissociable trial sequence effects in children, pre-adolescents, and adults. Cognition, 179, 150–162.PubMedCrossRef

Erb, C. D., Moher, J., Sobel, D. M., & Song, J. H. (2016). Reach tracking reveals dissociable processes underlying cognitive control. Cognition, 152, 114–126.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Erlhagen, W., & Schöner, G. (2002). Dynamic field theory of movement preparation. Psychological Review, 109(3), 545–572.PubMedCrossRef

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.PubMedCrossRef

Freedberg, M., Wagschal, T. T., & Hazeltine, E. (2014). Incidental learning and task boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(6), 1680–1700.PubMed

Freud, E., Aisenberg, D., Salzer, Y., Henik, A., & Ganel, T. (2015). Simon in action: The effect of spatial congruency on grasping trajectories. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 79(1), 134–142.PubMedCrossRef

Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549.CrossRef

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

Hazeltine, E. (2005). Response-response compatibility during bimanual movements: Evidence for the conceptual coding of action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(4), 682–688.CrossRef

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

Hietanen, J. K., & Pia, R. (1995). Facilitation and interference occur at different stages of processing in the Simon paradigm. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 7(2), 183–199.CrossRef

Hochman, E. Y., Milman, V., & Tal, L. (2017). Evidence for aversive withdrawal response to own errors. Acta Psychologica, 180, 147–154.PubMedCrossRef

Hommel, B. (1996). No prevalence of right-left over top-bottom spatial codes. Perception & Psychophysics, 58(1), 102–110.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (1997). Interactions between stimulus-stimulus congruence and stimulus-response compatibility. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 59(4), 248–260.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 73(4), 512–526.PubMedCrossRef

Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 189–202.PubMedCrossRef

Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 68(1), 1–17.PubMedCrossRef

Hoppe, K., Küper, K., & Wascher, E. (2017). Sequential modulations in a combined horizontal and vertical Simon task: Is there ERP evidence for feature integration effects? Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1094.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Janczyk, M., & Leuthold, H. (2018). Effector system-specific sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(3), 1066–1072.CrossRef

Kerzel, D., & Buetti, S. (2012). Approach and avoidance movements are unaffected by cognitive conflict: A comparison of the Simon effect and stimulus–response compatibility. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 456–461.CrossRef

Kim, S., & Cho, Y. S. (2014). CSE without feature integration and contingency learning. Acta Psychologica, 149(1), 60–68.PubMedCrossRef

Kim, S., Lee, S. H., & Cho, Y. S. (2015). Control processes through the suppression of the automatic response activation triggered by task-irrelevant information in the Simon-type tasks. Acta Psychologica, 162(1), 51–61.PubMedCrossRef

Kornblum, S. (1994). The way irrelevant dimensions are processed depends on what they overlap with: The case of Stroop-and Simon-like stimuli. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 56(3), 130–135.PubMedCrossRef

Lee, J., & Cho, Y. S. (2013). CSE in cross-task context: Evidence for dimension-specific modulation. Acta Psychologica, 144(3), 617–627.PubMedCrossRef

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 Psychologica, 190, 267–276.PubMedCrossRef

Lippa, Y. (1996). A referential coding explanation for compatibility effects of physically orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 49(4), 950–971.CrossRef

Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(4), 476–490.CrossRef

Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5), 450–452.PubMedCrossRef

Miller, J. (1982). Discrete versus continuous stage models of human information processing: In search of partial output. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(2), 273.PubMed

Miller, J., & Roüast, N. M. (2016). Dissociations of spatial congruence effects across response measures: An examination of delta plots. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 80(5), 805–820.PubMedCrossRef

Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2008). Cognitive control acts locally. Cognition, 106(2), 1071–1080.PubMedCrossRef

Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (1985). Compatibility effects in the assignment of symbolic stimuli to discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(5), 623–639.

Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (1986). Salient-feature coding operations in spatial precuing tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12(3), 277.

Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2010). Stimulus–response compatibility for mixed mappings and tasks with unique responses. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(2), 320–340.PubMedCrossRef

Proctor, R. W., Miles, J. D., & Baroni, G. (2011). Reaction time distribution analysis of spatial correspondence effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(2), 242–266.CrossRef

Proctor, R. W., Vu, K.-P. L., & Nicoletti, R. (2003). Does right-left prevalence occur for the Simon effect? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 65(8), 1318–1329.CrossRef

Reeve, T. G., & Proctor, R. W. (1984). On the advance preparation of discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(4), 541–553.PubMed

Resulaj, A., Kiani, R., Wolpert, D. M., & Shadlen, M. N. (2009). Changes of mind in decision-making. Nature, 461(7261), 263–266.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231.CrossRef

Rosenbaum, D. A. (1983). The movement precuing technique: Assumptions, applications, and extensions. In R. A. Magill (Ed.), Memory and control of action (pp. 231–274). Amsterdam: North-Holland.CrossRef

Rubichi, S., & Pellicano, A. (2004). Does the Simon effect affect movement execution? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(6), 825–840.CrossRef

Rubichi, S., Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (2005). Right-left prevalence with task-irrelevant spatial codes. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 69(3), 167–178.PubMedCrossRef

Scherbaum, S., Dshemuchadse, M., Fischer, R., & Goschke, T. (2010). How decisions evolve: The temporal dynamics of action selection. Cognition, 115(3), 407–416.PubMedCrossRef

Schmidt, J. R. (2019). Evidence against conflict monitoring and adaptation: An updated review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(3), 753–771.CrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory SR compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(3), 300–304.CrossRefPubMed

Smith, G. A., & Carew, M. (1987). Decision time unmasked: Individuals adopt different strategies. Australian Journal of Psychology, 39(3), 339–351.CrossRef

Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schröter, 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(6), 1345–1363.PubMed

Töbel, L., Hübner, R., & Stürmer, B. (2014). Suppression of irrelevant activation in the horizontal and vertical Simon task differs quantitatively not qualitatively. Acta Psychologica, 152, 47–55.PubMedCrossRef

Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115(2), 518–525.PubMedCrossRef

Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2009). Adaptation by binding: A learning account of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(6), 252–257.PubMedCrossRef

Verguts, T., Notebaert, W., Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2011). Post-conflict slowing: cognitive adaptation after conflict processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 76–82.CrossRef

Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2001). Determinants of right-left and top-bottom prevalence for two-dimensional spatial compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 813–828.PubMed

Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). The prevalence effect in two-dimensional stimulus-response compatibility is a function of the relative salience of the dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 64(5), 815–828.CrossRef

Vu, K.-P. L., Pellicano, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2005). No overall right-left prevalence for horizontal. Perception & Psychophysics, 67(5), 929–938.CrossRef

Vu, K. P. L., Proctor, R. W., & Pick, D. F. (2000). Vertical versus horizontal spatial compatibility: Right-left prevalence with bimanual responses. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 64(1), 25–40.PubMedCrossRef

Weissman, D. H. (2019a). Interacting congruency effects in the hybrid Stroop-Simon task prevent conclusions regarding the domain specificity or generality of the congruency sequence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

Weissman, D. H. (2019b). Let your fingers do the walking: Finger force distinguishes competing accounts of the congruency sequence effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 1619–1626.CrossRef

Weissman, D. H., Colter, K., Drake, B., & Morgan, C. (2015). The congruency sequence effect transfers across different response modes. Acta Psychologica, 161, 86–94.PubMedCrossRef

Weissman, D. H., Jiang, J., & Egner, T. (2014). Determinants of CSEs without learning and memory confounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(5), 2022–2037.PubMed

Wiegand, K., & Wascher, E. (2005). Dynamic aspects of stimulus-response correspondence: Evidence for two mechanisms involved in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(3), 453–464.PubMed

Wiegand, K., & Wascher, E. (2007). The Simon effect for vertical S-R relations: changing the mechanism by randomly varying the S–R mapping rule? Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 71(2), 219–233.PubMedCrossRef

Wühr, P. (2005). Evidence for gating of direct response activation in the Simon task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(2), 282–288.CrossRef

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

Wylie, S. A., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., Ridderinkhof, K. R., Bashore, T. R., Powell, V. D., Manning, C. A., et al. (2009). The effect of Parkinson's disease on interference control during action selection. Neuropsychologia, 47(1), 145–157.PubMedCrossRef

Zhang, J., & Kornblum, S. (1997). Distributional analysis and De Jong, Liang, and Lauber’s (1994) dual-process model of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(5), 1543.

Zhang, H. H., Zhang, J., & Kornblum, S. (1999). A parallel distributed processing model of stimulus–stimulus and stimulus–response compatibility. Cognitive Psychology, 38(3), 386–432.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Response mode modulates the congruency sequence effect in spatial conflict tasks: evidence from aimed-movement responses
Auteurs: Chae Eun Lim
Yang Seok Cho
Publicatiedatum: 26-06-2020
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2021
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01376-3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2021

Do interoceptive accuracy and interoceptive sensibility predict emotion regulation?

Anomalous visual experience is linked to perceptual uncertainty and visual imagery vividness

Acquisition of landmark, route, and survey knowledge in a wayfinding task: in stages or in parallel?

Generalization of novel sensorimotor associations among pianists and non-pianists: more evidence that musical training effects are constrained

Pretty crowds are happy crowds: the influence of attractiveness on mood perception

Loss and beauty: how experts and novices judge paintings with lacunae