Attentional adjustment to conflict strength: Evidence from the effects of manipulating flanker- Target SOA on response times and prestimulus pupil size

Experimental Psychology

Volumn 61, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 55-67

  Wendt, Mike ^a   Kiesel, Andrea ^b   Geringswald, Franziska ^c   Purmann, Sascha ^c   Fischer, Rico ^d  

^a HELMUT SCHMIDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG   (Germany)

^c OTTO VON GUERICKE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^d DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Conflict adjustment; Executive control; Flanker task

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONFLICT; CONFLICT ADJUSTMENT; EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; FLANKER TASK; HUMAN; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PUPIL; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

CONFLICT ADJUSTMENT; EXECUTIVE CONTROL; FLANKER TASK;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEEDBACK, PSYCHOLOGICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PUPIL; REACTION TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84893931101     PISSN: 16183169     EISSN: 21905142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000227     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Akçay, Ç. & Hazeltine, E. (2007). Conflict monitoring and feature overlap: Two sources of sequential modulations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 742-748.
2. Akçay, Ç. & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Domain-specific conflict adaptation without feature repetitions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 505-511.
3. Aston-Jones, G., & Cohen, J. D. (2005). An integrative theory of locus coeruleus-norepinephrine function: Adaptive gain and optimal performance. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 28, 403-450.
4. Blais, C., Robidoux, S., Risko, E. F., & Besner, D. (2007). Itemspecific adaptation and the conflict-monitoring hypothesis: A computational model. Psychological Review, 114, 1076- 1086.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulated cortex: An update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 539-546.
8. Bugg, J. M. (2007). Opposing influences on conflict-driven adaptation in the Eriksen flanker task. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1217-1227.
9. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.
10. Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332-361.
11. Coles, M. G. H., Gratton, G., Bashore, T. R., Eriksen, C. W., & Donchin, E. (1985). A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow of human information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 529-552.
12. Cornelissen, F. W., Peters, E. M., & Palmer, J. (2002). The Eyelink Toolbox: Eye tracking with MATLAB and the Psychophysics Toolbox. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 34, 613-617.
13. Davelaar, E. J., & Stevens, J. (2009). Sequential dependencies in the Eriksen flanker task:Adirect comparison of two competing accounts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 121-126.
14. De Fockert, J., Rees, G., Frith, C. D., & Lavie, N. (2001). The role of working memory in visual selective attention. Science, 291, 1803-1806.
15. Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2012). Conflicts as aversive signals. Brain and Cognition, 78, 94-98.
16. Durston, S., Davidson, M. C., Thomas, K. M., Worden, M. S., Tottenham, N., Martinez, A., . . . Casey, B. J. (2003) Parametric manipulation of conflict and response competition using rapid mixed-trial event-related fMRI. NeuroImage, 20, 2135-2141.
17. Eriksen, C. W. (1995). The flanker task and response competition: A useful tool for investigating a variety of cognitive problems. Visual Cognition, 2, 101-118.
18. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143-149.
19. Eriksen, C. W., & Schultz, D. W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results. Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 249-263.
20. Fernandez-Duque, D., & Knight, M. B. (2008). Cognitive control: Dynamic, sustained, and voluntary influences. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 34, 340-355.
21. Fischer, R., Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2008). Contextsensitive adjustments of cognitive control: Conflict-adaptation effects are modulated by processing demands of the ongoing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 712-718.
22. Flowers, J. H. (1980). Response priming effects in a digit naming task as a function of target-noise separation. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 16, 443-446.
23. Forster, S. E., Carter, C. S., Cohen, J. D., & Cho, R. Y. (2011). Parametric manipulation of the conflict signal and controlstate adaptation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 923-935.
24. Funes, M. J., LupiüÇez, J., & Humphreys, G. (2010). Sustained vs. transient cognitive control: Evidence of a behavioural dissociation. Cognition, 114, 338-347.
25. Gilzenrat, M. S., Nieuwenhuis, S., Jepma, M., & Cohen, J. D. (2010). Pupil diameter tracks changes in control state predicted by the adaptive gain theory of locus coeruleus function. Cognitive, Affectice, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10, 252-269.
26. Granholm, E., Asarnow, R. F., Sarkin, A. J., & Dykes, K. L. (1996). Pupillary responses index cognitive resource limitations. Psychophysiology, 33, 457-461.
27. 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.
28. Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2004). A featureintegration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68, 1-17.
29. Jepma, M., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2011). Pupil diameter predicts changes in the exploration-exploitation trade-off: Evidence for the adaptive gain theory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1587-1596.
30. Jimünez, L., & Mündez, A. (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, 271-284.
31. Just, M. A.,&Carpenter, P. A. (1993). The intensity dimension of thought: Pupillometric indices of sentence processing. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 310-339.
32. Kahneman, D., & Beatty, J. (1966). Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science, 154, 1583-1585.
33. Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W. III, Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior cingulated conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303, 1023-1026.
34. Kornblum, S., & Stevens, G. (2002). Sequential effects of dimensional overlap: Findings and issues. In W. Prinz & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and performance XIX: Common mechanisms in perception and action (pp. 9-54). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
35. Laeng, B., Ørbo, M., Holmlund, T., & Miozzo, M. (2011). Pupillary Stroop effects. Cognitive Processing, 12, 13-21.
36. Lamers, M. J. M., & Roelofs, A. (2011). Attentional control adjustments in Eriksen and Stroop task performance can be independent of response conflict. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1056-1081.
37. Lavie, N., Hirst, A., de Fockert, J. W., & Viding, E. (2004). Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 339-354.
38. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
39. Mayr, U., & Awh, E. (2009). The elusive link between conflict and conflict adaptation. Psychological Research, 73, 794- 802.
40. Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2006). Stimulus conflict predicts conflict adaptation in a numerical flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 1078-1084.
41. Nuerk, H.-C., Bauer, F., Krummenacher, J., Heller, D., & Willmes, K. (2005). The power of the mental number line: How the magnitude of unattended numbers affects performance in an Eriksen task. Psychology Science, 47, 34-50.
42. Peavler, W. S. (1974). Pupil size, information overload, and performance differences. Psychophysiology, 11, 559-565.
43. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The videotoolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442.
44. Piquado, T., Isaacowitz, D., & Wingfield, A. (2010). Pupillometry as a measure of cognitive effort in younger and older adults. Psychophysiology, 47, 1-10.
45. Puccioni, O., & Vallesi, A. (2012). Sequential congruency effects: Disentangling priming and conflict adaptation. Psychological Research, 76, 591-600.
46. Purmann, S., Badde, S., & Wendt, M. (2009). Adjustments to recent and frequent conflict reflect two distinguishable mechanisms. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 350-355.
47. Rajkowski, J., Kubiak, P., & Aston-Jones, G. (1993). Correlations between locus coeruleus (LC) neural activity, pupil diameter and behavior in monkey support a role of LC in attention. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 19, 974.
48. Savitzky, A., & Golay, M. J. E. (1964). Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures. Analytical Chemistry, 36, 1627-1639.
49. Schmidt, J. R. (2013). Questioning conflict adaptation: Proportion congruent and Gratton effects reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 615-630.
50. 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.
51. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime User's Guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
52. Spapü, M. M., & Hommel, B. (2008). He said, she said: Episodic retrieval induces conflict adaptation in an auditory Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1117-1121.
53. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643- 662.
54. Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schrçter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345-1363.
55. Takezawa, T., & Miyatani, M. (2005). Quantitative relation between conflict and response inhibition in the flanker task. Psychological Reports, 97, 515-526.
56. Ullsperger, M., Bylsma, L. M., & Botvinick, M. M. (2005). The conflict adaptation effect: It's not just priming. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5, 467-472.
57. Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115, 518-525.
58. Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2009). Adaptation by binding: A learning account of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 252-257.
59. Verguts, T., Notebaert, W., Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2011). Post-conflict slowing: Cognitive adaptation after conflict processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 76-82.
60. Wendt, M., Kluwe, R. H., & Peters, A. (2006). Sequential modulations of interference evoked by processing taskirrelevant stimulus features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 644-667.
61. Wühr, P., & Ansorge, U. (2005). Exploring trial-by-trial modulations of the Simon effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 705-731.