The flexibility of context-specific control: Evidence for context-driven generalization of item-specific control settings

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 62, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 1523-1532

  Crump, Matthew J C ^a   Milliken, Bruce ^b  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Attention; Contextual cueing; Generalization; Ognitive control; Stroop

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; ONLINE SYSTEM; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; VISION;

ATTENTION; FEMALE; GENERALIZATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMANS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; ONLINE SYSTEMS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; REACTION TIME; SET (PSYCHOLOGY); TRANSFER (PSYCHOLOGY); VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 68349098380     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210902752096     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Awh, E., Sgarlata, A. M., & Kliestik, J. (2005). Resolving visual interference during covert spatial orienting: Online attentional control through static records of prior visual experience. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 192-206.
2. Brooks, L. R., & Vokey, J. R. (1991). Abstract analogies and abstracted grammars: Comments on Reber (1989), and Mathews et al. (1989). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 316-323.
3. Chun, M. M. (2000). Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 170-178.
4. Crump, M. J., Gong, Z., & Milliken, B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 316-321.
5. Crump, M. J. C., Vaquero, J. M. R., & Milliken, B. M. (2008). Context-specific learning and control: The role of awareness, task-set, and relative salience. Consciousness & Cognition, 17, 22-36.
6. Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 374-380.
7. Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2004). A feature integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68, 1-17.
8. Jacoby, L. L., & Brooks, L. R. (1984). Nonanalytic cognition: Memory, perception, and concept formation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 18, 1-47.
9. Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 638-644.
10. Kolers, P. A., & Roediger, H. L. (1984). Procedures of mind. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 23, 289-314.
11. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
12. Logan, G. D. (2002). An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychological Review, 109, 376-409.
13. Mayr, U., & Bryck, R. L. (2007). Outsourcing control to the environment: Effects of stimulus/response locations on task selection. Psychological Research, 71, 107 -116.
14. Mewhort, D. J. K., & Johns, E. E. (2005). Sharpening the echo: An iterative-resonance model for short-term recognition memory. Memory, 13, 300-307.
15. Neill, W. T. (1997). Episodic retrieval in negative priming and repetition priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1291-1305.
16. Palmeri, T. J. (1997). Exemplar similarity and the development of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 324-354.
17. Schmidt, J. R., & Besner, D. (2008). The Stroop effect: Why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 514-523.
18. Schneider, W. (1988). Micro-experimental laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 20, 206-217.
19. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
20. VanSelst, M., & Jolicoeur,P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 631-650.
21. Wendt, M., Kluwe, R. H., & Vietze, I. (2008). Location-specific versus hemisphere-specific adaptation of processing selectivity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 135-140.