Generality and specificity in cognitive control: conflict adaptation within and across selective-attention tasks but not across selective-attention and Simon tasks

Psychological Research

Volumn 79, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 143-162

  Freitas, Antonio L ^a   Clark, Sheri L ^a  

^a STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; COGNITION; CONFLICT; EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PHYSIOLOGY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; COGNITION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84893192844     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-014-0540-1     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Akçay, Ç., & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Domain-specific conflict adaptation without feature repetitions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,18, 505–511. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0084-y.
2. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review,108, 624–652. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624.
3. 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. doi:10.1037/a0024385.
4. Braem, S., Verguts, T., Roggeman, C., & Notebaert, W. (2012). Reward modulates adaptations to conflict. Cognition,125, 324–332. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.015.
5. Bugg, J. M. (2008). Opposing influences on conflict-driven adaptation in the Eriksen flanker task. Memory & Cognition,36, 1217–1227. doi:10.3758/MC.36.7.1217.
6. Carter, C. S., & Krug, M. K. (2012). Dynamic cognitive control and frontal—cingulate interactions. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of attention (2nd ed., pp. 89–98). New York: Guilford Press.
7. Chmiel, N. (1984). Phonological recoding for reading: the effect of concurrent articulation in a Stroop task. British Journal of Psychology,75, 213–220. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1984.tb01894.x.
8. Clayson, P. E., & Larson, M. J. (2011). Conflict adaptation and sequential trial effects: support for the conflict monitoring theory. Neuropsychologia,49, 1953–1961. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.03.023.
9. Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,12, 374–380. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.001.
10. 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, 143–149. doi:10.3758/BF03203267.
11. Freitas, A. L., Bahar, M., Yang, S., & Banai, R. (2007). Contextual adjustments in cognitive control across tasks. Psychological Science,18, 1040–1043. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02022.x.
12. Funes, M. J., Lupiáñez, J., & Humphreys, G. (2010). Analyzing the generality of conflict adaptation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,36, 147–161. doi:10.1037/a0017598.
13. Gordon, R. D., & Irwin, D. E. (2000). The role of physical and conceptual properties in preserving object continuity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,26, 136–150. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.1.136.
14. 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, 480–506. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.480.
15. 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, 1898–1914. doi:10.1037/a0024662.
16. Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition,5, 183–216. doi:10.1080/713756773.
17. Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,8, 494–500. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007.
18. Kan, I. P., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Drummey, A. B., Nutile, L., KrupaNovick, L., & Novick, J. M. (2014). To adapt or not to adapt: the question of domain-general control. Cognition (in press).
19. Kleiman, T., Hassin, R. R., & Trope, Y. (2014). The control-freak mind: stereotypical biases are eliminated following conflict-activated cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General (in press).
20. Kopp, B., Mattler, U., Goertz, R., & Rist, F. (1996). N2, P3 and the lateralized readiness potential in a nogo task involving selective response priming. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology,99(1), 19–27. doi:10.1016/0921-884X(96)95617-9.
21. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review,97, 253–270. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253.
22. Kornblum, S., & Lee, J. W. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,21(4), 855. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.21.4.855.
23. Kühn, S., Keizer, A. W., Colzato, L. S., Rombouts, S. B., & Hommel, B. (2011). The neural underpinnings of event-file management: evidence for stimulus-induced activation of and competition among stimulus-response bindings. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,23, 896–904. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21485.
24. Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2006). Sequential modulations of correspondence effects across spatial dimensions and tasks. Memory & Cognition,34, 356–367. doi:10.3758/BF03193413.
25. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin,109, 163–203. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163.
26. Mayr, U., & Awh, E. (2009). The elusive link between conflict and conflict adaptation. Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung,73, 794–802. doi:10.1007/s00426-008-0191-1.
27. Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience,6, 450–452. doi:10.1038/nn1051.
28. Mishkin, M., Ungerleider, L. G., & Macko, K. A. (1983). Object vision and spatial vision: two cortical pathways. Trends in Neurosciences,6, 414–417. doi:10.1016/0166-2236(83)90190-X.
29. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 134–140. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7.
30. Neill, W. T., Valdes, L. A., Terry, K. M., & Gorfein, D. S. (1992). Persistence of negative priming: II. Evidence for episodic trace retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,18, 993–1000. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.993.
31. Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2008). Cognitive control acts locally. Cognition,106, 1071–1080. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.04.011.
32. O’Leary, M. J., & Barber, P. J. (1993). Interference effects in the Stroop and Simon paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,19, 830–844. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.19.4.830.
33. Palef, S. R. (1978). Judging pictorial and linguistic aspects of space. Memory & Cognition, 6, 70–75. doi:10.3758/BF031974.
34. 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, 176–186. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.06.002.
35. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 174–176. doi:10.1037/h0027448.
36. Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. Stimulus–response compatibility: An integrated perspective,65, 31–86.
37. Soutschek, A., Taylor, P., Muller, H., & Schubert, T. (2013). Dissociable mechanisms resolve conflicts during perception and response selection: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study. Journal of Neuroscience,33, 5647–5654.
38. Tipper, S. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: inhibitory priming by ignored objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,37, 571–590. doi:10.1080/14640748508400920.
39. Ullsperger, M., Bylsma, L. M., & Botvinick, M. M. (2005). The conflict adaptation effect: it’s not just priming. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience,5(4), 467–472. doi:10.3758/CABN.5.4.467.
40. Van Steenbergen, H., Band, G. P., & Hommel, B. (2009). Reward counteracts conflict adaptation: evidence for a role of affect in executive control. Psychological Science,20, 1473–1477. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02470.x.
41. Van Steenbergen, H., Band, G. P., & Hommel, B. (2010). In the mood for adaptation: how affect regulates conflict-driven control. Psychological Science,21, 1629–1634. doi:10.1177/0956797610385951.
42. Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2009). Adaptation by binding: a learning account of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,13, 252–257. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.02.007.
43. Waxer, M., & Morton, J. B. (2011). The development of future-oriented control: an electrophysiological investigation. Neuroimage,56, 1648–1654. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.02.001.
44. Wendt, M., Kluwe, R. H., & Peters, A. (2006). Sequential modulation of interference evoked by processing task-irrelevant stimulus features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,32, 644–667. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.644.