Further Evidence for the Binding and Retrieval of Control-States From the Flanker Task
Abstract
Abstract. In response-interference tasks, congruency effects are reduced in trials that follow an incongruent trial. This congruence sequence effect (CSE) has been taken to reflect top-down cognitive control processes that monitor for and intervene in case of conflict. In contrast, episodic-memory accounts explain CSEs with bottom-up retrieval of stimulus-response links. Reconciling these opposing views, an emerging perspective holds that memory stores instances of control – abstract control-states – creating a shortcut for effortful control processes. Support comes from a study that assessed CSEs in a prime-target task. Here, repeating an irrelevant context feature boosted CSEs, possibly by retrieving previously stored control-states. We present a conceptual replication using the Eriksen flanker task because previous research found that CSEs in the flanker task reflect different control mechanisms than CSEs in the prime-target task. We measured CSEs while controlling for stimulus–response memory effects and manipulated contextual information (vertical spatial location) independently from the stimulus information, which introduced the conflict (horizontal spatial location). Results replicate previous findings – CSEs increased for context-repetition compared to context-changes. This study shows that retrieval of control-states is not limited to a specific task or context feature and therefore generalizes the notion that abstract control parameters are stored into trial-specific event files.
References
(2017). Repetition or alternation of context influences sequential congruency effect depending on the presence of contingency. Psychological Research, 81(2), 490–507. 10.1007/s00426-016-0751-8
(2020). Effects of conflict trial proportion: A comparison of the Eriksen and Simon tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 83(2), 810–836. 10.3758/s13414-020-02164-2
(2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652. 10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.624
(2014). Reward determines the context-sensitivity of cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(5), 1769–1778. 10.1037/a0037554
(2006). What do we learn from binding features? Evidence for multilevel feature integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 705–716. 10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.705
(2012). Is “conflict adaptation” driven by conflict? Behavioral and EEG evidence for the underappreciated role of congruent trials. Psychophysiology, 49(5), 583–589. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01354.x
(2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 316–321. 10.3758/bf03193850
(2016). Learning to selectively attend from context-specific attentional histories: A demonstration and some constraints. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(1), 59–77. 10.1037/cep0000066
(2009). Sequential dependencies in the Eriksen flanker task: A direct comparison of two competing accounts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(1), 121–126. 10.3758/pbr.16.1.121
(2003). On the role of stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility in the Stroop effect. Memory & Cognition, 31(3), 353–359. 10.3758/bf03194393
(2019). Reconciling cognitive-control and episodic-retrieval accounts of sequential conflict modulation: Binding of control-states into event-files. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(9), 1265–1270. 10.1037/xhp0000673
(2021). Raw data and analysis scripts for “Further evidence for the binding and retrieval of control-states from the flanker task.” https://osf.io/9crzp/
(2021). Multiple routes to control in the prime-target task: Congruence sequence effects emerge due to modulation of irrelevant prime activity and utilization of temporal order information. Journal of Cognition, 4(1) 1–18. 10.5334/joc.143
(2014). Analyzing distributional properties of interference effects across modalities: Chances and challenges. Psychological Research, 78(3), 387–399. 10.1007/s00426-014-0551-y
(2014). The congruency sequence effect 3.0: A critical test of conflict adaptation. PLoS One, 9(10), e110462. 10.1371/journal.pone.0110462
(2009). The microgenesis of action-effect binding. Psychological Research, 73(3), 425–435. 10.1007/s00426-008-0161-7
(2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 380–390. 10.3758/cabn.7.4.380
(2014). Creatures of habit (and control): A multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1247. 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01247
(2007). Separate conflict-specific cognitive control mechanisms in the human brain. Neuroimage, 35(2), 940–948. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.11.061
(1995). Stimulus-response compatibility and automatic response activation: Evidence from psychophysiological studies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(4), 837–854. 10.1037/0096-1523.21.4.837
(1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149. 10.3758/bf03203267
(2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. 10.3758/bf03193146
(1997). The dimensionality of the flanker compatibility effect: A psychophysiological analysis. Psychological Research, 60(3), 144–155. 10.1007/bf00419762
(2020). Binding and retrieval in action control (BRAC). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(5), 375–387. 10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.004
(2013). Retrieval of event files can be conceptually mediated. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(4), 700–709. 10.3758/s13414-013-0431-3
(2007). Distractor repetitions retrieve previous responses to targets. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(10), 1367–1377. 10.1080/17470210600955645
(2015). The negative priming paradigm: An update and implications for selective attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(6), 1577–1597. 10.3758/s13423-015-0841-4
(2016). Multi-level response coding in stimulus-response bindings: Irrelevant distractors retrieve both semantic and motor response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(10), 1643–1656. 10.1037/xlm0000264
(2014). You better stop! Binding “stop” tags to irrelevant stimulus features. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(4), 809–832. 10.1080/17470218.2013.834372
(2019). An episodic account of habit acquisition: Stimulus-response bindings as a source of contingency learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2927. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02927
(2020). Task sets serve as boundaries for the congruency sequence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46(8), 798–812. 10.1037/xhp0000750
(1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480–506. 10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.480
(2011). The boundaries of sequential modulations: Evidence for set-level control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(6), 1898–1914. 10.1037/a0024662
(2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494–500. 10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007
(2014). Attentional control of the creation and retrieval of stimulus-response bindings. Psychological Research, 78(4), 520–538. 10.1007/s00426-013-0503-y
(2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68(1), 1–17. 10.1007/s00426-003-0132-y
(1996). The cognitive representation of action: Automatic integration of perceived action effects. Psychological Research, 59(3), 176–186. 10.1007/bf00425832
(2020). Prefrontal reinstatement of contextual task demand is predicted by separable hippocampal patterns. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1–12. 10.1038/s41467-020-15928-z
(2013). It is not what you expect: Dissociating conflict adaptation from expectancies in a Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(1), 271–284. 10.1037/a0027734
(1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270. 10.1037/0033-295x.97.2.253
(2016). Shifts in target modality cause attentional reset: Evidence from sequential modulation of crossmodal congruency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1466–1473. 10.3758/s13423-016-1001-1
(March 17, 2016). One-sided tests: Efficient and underused. The 20% Statistician. http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2016/03/one-sided-tests-efficient-and-underused.html
(2011). Attentional control adjustments in Eriksen and Stroop task performance can be independent of response conflict. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(6), 1056–1081. 10.1080/17470218.2010.523792
(2019). Combining speed and accuracy to control for speed-accuracy trade-offs(?). Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 40–60. 10.3758/s13428-018-1076-x
(2004). Common and distinct neural substrates of attentional control in an integrated Simon and spatial Stroop task as assessed by event-related fMRI. Neuroimage, 22(3), 1097–1106. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.02.033
(1998). What is learned during automatization? II. Obligatory encoding of spatial location. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(6), 1720–1736. 10.1037/0096-1523.24.6.1720
(2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5), 450–452. 10.1038/nn1051
(2017a). Dissociation of binding and learning processes. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(8), 2590–2605. 10.3758/s13414-017-1393-7
(2017b). Overlearned responses hinder S-R binding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(1), 1–5. 10.1037/xhp0000341
(2015). From hands to feet: Abstract response representations in distractor–response bindings. Acta Psychologica, 159(159), 69–75. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.05.012
(2016). A common mechanism behind distractor-response and response-effect binding? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(4), 1074–1086. 10.3758/s13414-016-1063-1
(2016). Distractor-based stimulus-response bindings retrieve decisions independent of motor programs. Acta Psychologica, 171(171), 57–64. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.09.006
(2015). Ad-hoc and context-dependent adjustments of selective attention in conflict control: An ERP study with visual probes. NeuroImage, 107(171), 76–84. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811914009823
(2006). Stimulus conflict predicts conflict adaptation in a numerical flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(6), 1078–1084. 10.3758/bf03213929
(2018). The primacy of spatial context in the neural representation of events. Journal of Neuroscience, 38(11), 2755–2765. 10.1523/jneurosci.1638-17.2018
(2011). The dynamics of cognitive control: Evidence for within-trial conflict adaptation from frequency-tagged EEG. Psychophysiology, 48(5), 591–600. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2010.01137.x
(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. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.06.002
(2014). Congruency sequence effects without feature integration or contingency learning confounds. PLoS One, 9(7), e102337. 10.1371/journal.pone.0102337
(2002). E-Prime: User's guide. Reference guide. Getting started guide. Psychology Software Tools, Incorporated.
(2019). Monitoring and control in multitasking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(1), 222–240. 10.3758/s13423-018-1512-z
(2016). Hierarchical task representation: Task files and response selection. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), 449–454. 10.1177/0963721416665085
(2019). Binding abstract concepts. Psychological Research, 83(5), 878–884. 10.1007/s00426-017-0897-z
(2008). He said, she said: Episodic retrieval induces conflict adaptation in an auditory Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(6), 1117–1121. 10.3758/pbr.15.6.1117
(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. 10.1037/0096-1523.28.6.1345
(1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97–136. 10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5
(1991). Search, similarity, and integration of features between and within dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17(3), 652–676. 10.1037/0096-1523.17.3.652
(2005). The conflict adaptation effect: It's not just priming. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(4), 467–472. 10.3758/cabn.5.4.467
(2010). How object-specific are object files? Evidence for integration by location. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(5), 1184–1192. 10.1037/a0019955
(2006). A neuroimaging approach to the relationship between attention and speed-accuracy tradeoff [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Pittsburgh.
(2005). Separating semantic conflict and response conflict in the Stroop task: A functional MRI study. Neuroimage, 27(3), 497–504. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.04.042
(2006). Stimulus- and response-conflict-induced cognitive control in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 328–333. 10.3758/bf03193852
(2004). Semantic generalization of stimulus-task bindings. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1027–1033. 10.3758/bf03196732
(2014). Determinants of congruency sequence effects without learning and memory confounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(5), 2022–2037. 10.1037/a0037454
(2019). Let your fingers do the walking: Finger force distinguishes competing accounts of the congruency sequence effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(5), 1619–1626. 10.3758/s13423-019-01626-5
(2011). Conflict adaptation in time: Foreperiods as contextual cues for attentional adjustment. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(5), 910–916. 10.3758/s13423-011-0119-4
(2008). The impact of stimulus-specific practice and task instructions on response congruency effects between tasks. Psychological Research, 72(4), 425–432. 10.1007/s00426-007-0117-3
(2012). Conflict-induced perceptual filtering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 675–686. 10.1037/a0025902
(2019). Affective influence on context-specific proportion congruent (CSPC) effect: Neutral or affective facial expressions as context stimuli. Experimental Psychology, 66(1), 86–97. 10.1027/1618-3169/a000436
