Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The dual mechanisms of control account proposed a role for proactive and reactive mechanisms in minimizing or resolving interference in conflict tasks. Proactive mechanisms are activated in advance of stimulus onset and lead to preparatory biasing of attention in a goal-directed fashion. Reactive mechanisms are triggered post-stimulus onset. Using an explicit, trial-by-trial pre-cueing procedure in a 4-choice color-word Stroop task, we investigated effects of congruency pre-cues on cognitive control. Under conditions of stimulus uncertainty (i.e., each word was associated with multiple, equally probable responses), pre-cue benefits were observed on incongruent trials when cues were 100 % valid but not when they were 75 % valid. These benefits were selectively found at the longest cue-to-stimulus interval (2,000 ms), consistent with a preparation-dependent proactive control mechanism. By contrast, when a reactive strategy of switching attention to the irrelevant dimension to predict the single correlated response was viable, pre-cue benefits were observed on incongruent trials for all cue-to-stimulus intervals including the shortest that afforded only 500 ms to prepare. The findings (a) suggest a restricted role for the preparation-dependent biasing of attention via proactive control in response to explicit, trial-by-trial pre-cues while (b) highlighting strategies that lead to pre-cue benefits but which appear to reflect primarily reactive use of the information afforded by the pre-cues. We conclude that pre-cues, though available in advance of stimulus onset, may stimulate proactive or reactive minimization of interference.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Algom, D., Dekel, A., & Pansky, A. (1996). The perception of number from the separability of the stimulus: the Stroop effect revisited. Memory & Cognition, 24, 57–572. CrossRef
Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Review, 115, 602–639. CrossRef
Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 437–443. CrossRef
Blais, C., Harris, M. B., Guerrero, J. V., & Bunge, S. A. (2012). Rethinking the role of automaticity in cognitive control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 268–276. CrossRef
Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 76–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bugg, J. M. (2012). Dissociating levels of cognitive control: the case of Stroop interference. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 302–309. CrossRef
Bugg, J. M., & Chanani, S. (2011). List-wide control is not entirely elusive: evidence from picture-word Stroop. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 930–936. CrossRef
Bugg, J. M., Diede, N. T., Cohen-Shikora, E. R., & Selmeczy, D. Expectations and experience: Dissociable bases for cognitive control? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. (in press).
Bugg, J. M., & Hutchison, K. A. (2013). Converging evidence for control of color-word Stroop interference at the item level. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 433–449. PubMed
Correa, A., Rao, A., & Nobre, A. (2008). Anticipating conflict facilitates controlled stimulus-response selection. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 1461–1472. CrossRef
Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Chanani, S. (2011a). Why it is too early to lose control in accounts of item-specific proportion congruency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 844–859. PubMed
Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Toth, J. (2008). Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1484–1494. CrossRef
Chao, H. (2011). Active inhibition of a distractor word: the distractor precue benefit in the Stroop color-naming task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 799–812. PubMed
Courtney, S. M. (2004). Attention and cognitive control as emergent properties of information representation in working memory. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4, 501–515. CrossRef
DePisapia, N., & Braver, T. S. (2006). A model of dual control mechanisms through anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex interactions. Neurocomputing, 69, 1322–1326. CrossRef
Dishon-Berkovits, M., & Algom, D. (2000). The Stroop effect: it is not the robust phenomenon that you have thought it to be. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1437–1449. CrossRef
Dyer, F. N. (1974). Stroop interference with long preexposures of the word: comparison of pure and mixed preexposure sequences. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 3, 8–10. CrossRef
Ghinescu, R., Schachtman, T. R., Stadler, M. A., Fabiani, M., & Gratton, G. (2010). Strategic behavior without awareness? Effects of implicit learning in the Eriksen flanker paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 38, 197–205. CrossRef
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506. CrossRef
Hommel, B. (2007). Consciousness and control: not identical twins. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 12, 155–176.
Jacoby, L. L., McElree, B., & Trainham, T. N. (1999). Automatic influences as accessibility bias in memory and Stroop-like tasks: toward a formal model. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance. Interaction of theory and application (pp. 461–486). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70. 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, 219–234. PubMed
Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 166–174. CrossRef
Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1982). Constraints on strategy construction in a speeded discrimination task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 502–520. PubMed
Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J., & Williamson, J. (1984). Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 135–138. CrossRef
Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423–1442. CrossRef
Musen, G., & Squire, L. R. (1993). Implicit learning of color-word associations using a Stroop paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 514–523.
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. (1975). Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance V. New York: Academic Press.
Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160–174. CrossRef
Sabri, M., Melara, R. D., & Algom, D. (2001). A confluence of contexts: asymmetric versus global failures of selective attention to Stroop dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 515–537. PubMed
Schmidt, J. R. (2013). Temporal learning and list-level proportion congruency: conflict adaptation or learning when to respond? PLoS ONE, 8, e0082320. CrossRef
Schmidt, J. R. (2014). List-level transfer effects in temporal learning: further complications for the list-level proportion congruent effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 373–385. CrossRef
Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2013). The expected value of control: an intergrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79, 218–240. CrossRef
Stokes, M., Thompson, R., Nobre, A. C., & Duncan, J. (2009). Shape-specific preparatory activity mediates attention to targets in human visual cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 19569–19574. CrossRef
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–661. CrossRef
Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Berger, J. (1992). Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words. Memory & Cognition, 20, 727–735. CrossRef
Wühr, P., & Kunde, W. (2008). Precueing spatial S–R correspondence: is there regulation of expected response conflict? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 872–883. PubMed
- The next trial will be conflicting! Effects of explicit congruency pre-cues on cognitive control
Julie M. Bugg
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg