Top

Gepubliceerd in:

06-08-2018 | Original Article

Target–distractor congruency: sequential effects in a temporal flanker task

Auteurs: Miriam Tomat, Mike Wendt, Aquiles Luna-Rodriguez, Michael Sprengel, Thomas Jacobsen

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2020

Abstract

The Congruency Sequence Effect (CSE) denotes the common finding that distractor–target Congruency Effects are reduced after incongruent compared to after congruent trials. Although the CSE is widely attributed to attentional adjustment (i.e., increasing or decreasing the bias in attentional weights regarding processing the target or distractor), unequivocal evidence for this assumption is missing. To investigate the CSE and attentional adjustment we used a temporal flanker task and intermixed a “temporal search task”, in which a target stimulus occurred randomly at one of two temporal positions, corresponding to the temporal positions of the target and the distractor occurrence in the temporal flanker task. We observed a CSE that could not be explained in terms of feature sequences, distractor-related contingencies, or a strategy of reversed distractor–response priming after incongruent trials. Furthermore, following a temporal search task trial, the Congruency Effect was larger when the search target occurred on the first than on the second temporal position, demonstrating that a reduced attentional bias towards the second temporal position increased interference from a distractor presented on the first temporal position. This supports a crucial assumption of the attentional adjustment account of the CSE. Performance in the temporal search task, however, provided no evidence for attentional adjustment.

vorige artikel The effects of attentional focus in the preparation and execution of a standing long jump

volgende artikel Food deprivation disrupts normal holistic processing of domain-specific stimuli

Note that the experimental design was not a factorial design as the condition in the preceding trial was categorized in terms of congruency if the preceding trial involved the flanker task and in terms of the temporal target position if the preceding trial involved the temporal search task. This arrangement allows for a comparison of the CSE and the hypothesized modulation of the Congruency Effect brought about by attending to a target stimulus presented on the first vs. second temporal position.

Additional analyses of search task performance, confined to the data of the 23 participants who produced valid data in the flanker task, did not substantively alter the pattern of results. In particular, the two-way interaction of Congruency in the Preceding Trial and Temporal Target Position failed to reach statistical significance in both RTs and error rates, F(1, 22) < 1 p = 0.46, and F(1, 22) = 1.36, p = 0.13, respectively. Also, there were no significant three-way interactions, involving Congruent/Incongruent Ratio, F(1, 22) < 1, p = 0.35, and F(1, 22) < 1, p = 0.43, for RTs and error rates, respectively. In the RT analysis, the main effect of Congruency in the Preceding Trial was replicated from the analysis including all participants, F(1, 22) = 4.09, p = 0.0028, η_p² = 0.00067. Thus, we observed a general slowing of responses after incongruent flanker task trials but did not obtain evidence in support of attentional adjustment to the previous congruency level.

Akçay, Ç, & Hazeltine, E. (2007). Conflict monitoring and feature overlap: Two sources of sequential modulations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 742–748. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196831.CrossRef

Akçay, Ç, & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Domain-specific conflict adaptation without feature repetitions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(3), 505–511. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0084-y.CrossRefPubMed

Blais, C., Robidoux, S., Risko, E. F., & Besner, D. (2007). Item-specific adaptation and the conflict-monitoring hypothesis: A computational model. Psychological Review, 114, 1076–1086.CrossRef

Blais, C., & Verguts, T. (2012). Increasing set size breaks down sequential congruency: Evidence for an associative locus of cognitive control. Acta Psychologica, 141, 133–139.CrossRef

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.108.3.624.CrossRef

Bugg, J. M. (2008). Opposing influences on conflict-driven adaptation in the Eriksen flanker task. Memory and Cognition, 36(7), 1217–1227. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.7.1217.CrossRefPubMed

Coles, M. G. H., Gratton, G., Bashore, T. R., Eriksen, C. W., & Donchin, E. (1985). A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(5), 529–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.11.5.529.CrossRefPubMed

Correa, Á, Capucci, P., Nobre, A. C., & Lupiáñez, J. (2010). The two sides of temporal orienting: Facilitating perceptual selection, disrupting response selection. Experimental Psychology, 57(2), 142–148.CrossRef

Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267.CrossRef

Eriksen, C. W. (1995). The flankers task and response competition: A useful tool for investigating a variety of cognitive problems. Visual Cognition, 2(2–3), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506289508401726.CrossRef

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(4), 480–506. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.480.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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024662.CrossRefPubMed

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0132-y.CrossRefPubMed

Jost, K., Wendt, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., Löw, A., & Jacobsen, T. (2017). Strategic control over extent and timing of distractor-based response activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(2), 326–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000326.CrossRefPubMed

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

Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2006). Sequential modulations of correspondence effects across spatial dimensions and tasks. Memory and Cognition, 34(2), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193413.CrossRefPubMed

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological bulletin, 109(2), 163.CrossRef

Mordkoff, J. T. (2012). Observation: Three reasons to avoid having half of the trials be congruent in a four-alternative forced-choice experiment on sequential modulation. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19(4), 750–757. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0257-3.CrossRefPubMed

Nieuwenhuis, S., Stins, J. F., Posthuma, D., Polderman, T. J. C., Boomsma, D. I., & de Geus, E. J. (2006). Accounting for sequential trial effects in the flanker task: Conflict adaptation or associative priming? Memory and Cognition, 34(6), 1260–1272. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193270.CrossRefPubMed

Purmann, S., Badde, S., & Wendt, M. (2009). Adjustments to recent and frequent conflict reflect two distinguishable mechanisms. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(2), 350–355. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.350.CrossRefPubMed

Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Micro- and macro-adjustment of task set: Activation and suppression in conflict tasks. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 66, 312–2323.CrossRef

Schmidt, J. R. (2013). Questioning conflict adaptation: Proportion congruent and Gratton effects reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(4), 615–630. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0373-0.CrossRefPubMed

Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J. C., Cheesman, J., & Besner, D. (2007). Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(2), 421–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2006.06.010.CrossRefPubMed

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.06.002.CrossRefPubMed

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.0102337.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sprengel, M., Hofmann, M. J., Wendt, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., Tamm, S., Jacobsen, T., & Jacobs, A. M. Conflict monitoring predicts N1-adaption in a temporal flanker task (in preparation).

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of experimental psychology, 18(6), 643.CrossRef

Ullsperger, M., Bylsma, L. M., & Botvinick, M. M. (2005). The conflict adaptation effect: It’s not just priming. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(4), 467–472. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.5.4.467.CrossRef

Verbruggen, F., Notebaert, W., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Stimulus- and response-conflict-induced cognitive control in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13(2), 328–333. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193852.CrossRefPubMed

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

Verguts, T., Notebaert, W., Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2011). Post-conflict slowing: Cognitive adaptation after conflict processing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(1), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0016-2.CrossRefPubMed

Weissman, D. H., Egner, T., Hawks, Z., & Link, J. (2015). The congruency sequence effect emerges when the distracter precedes the target. Acta Psychologica, 156, 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.01.003.CrossRefPubMed

Weissman, D. H., Jiang, J., & Egner, T. (2014). Determinants of congruency sequence effects without learning and memory confounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 40(5), 2022–2037. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037454.CrossRefPubMed

Wendt, M., Heldmann, M., Münte, T. F., & Kluwe, R. H. (2007). Disentangling sequential effects of stimulus- and response-related conflict and stimulus–response repetition using brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(7), 1104–1112. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.7.1104.CrossRefPubMed

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/10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.644.CrossRefPubMed

Wendt, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., & Jacobsen, T. (2012). Conflict-induced perceptual filtering. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 675–686. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025902.CrossRefPubMed

Wendt, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., & Jacobsen, T. (2014). Utility-based early modulation of processing distracting stimulus information. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 34(50), 16720–16725. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0754-14.2014.CrossRef

Wühr, P., & Kunde, W. (2008). Pre-cueing spatial S–R correspondence: Is there regulation of expected response conflict? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 872–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.4.872.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Target–distractor congruency: sequential effects in a temporal flanker task
Auteurs: Miriam Tomat
Mike Wendt
Aquiles Luna-Rodriguez
Michael Sprengel
Thomas Jacobsen
Publicatiedatum: 06-08-2018
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1061-0

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2020

Event segmentation and the temporal compression of experience in episodic memory

Shared attention for action selection and action monitoring in goal-directed reaching

Performance-informed EEG analysis reveals mixed evidence for EEG signatures unique to the processing of time

Quantifying insightful problem solving: a modified compound remote associates paradigm using lexical priming to parametrically modulate different sources of task difficulty

Individual differences in processing resources modulate bimanual interference in pointing

Action plan interrupted: resolution of proactive interference while coordinating execution of multiple action plans during sleep deprivation