Context-sensitive adjustment of cognitive control in dual-task performance

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 399-416

  Fischer, Rico ^a   Gottschalk, Caroline ^a   Dreisbach, Gesine ^b  

^a DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cognitive control; Context specific proportion congruence; Control regulation; Dual tasks; List wide proportion congruence

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; COGNITION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SOCIAL ADAPTATION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADAPTATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COGNITION; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; SOCIAL ADJUSTMENT; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84894411014     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0034310     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Abrahamse, E. L., Duthoo, W., Notebaert, W., & Risko, E. F. (2013). Attention modulation by proportion congruency: The asymmetrical list shifting effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication.
2. Bargh, J. A. (2005). Bypassing the will: Towards demystifying the nonconscious control of social behavior. In R. Hassin, J. S. Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The new unconscious (pp. 37-58). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3. Bargh, J. A., & Ferguson, M. J. (2000). Beyond behaviorism: On the automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 925-945.
4. Blais, C., & Bunge, S. (2010). Behavioral and neural evidence for itemspecific performance monitoring. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2758-2767.
5. Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 106-113.
6. Braver, T. S., Gray, J. A., & 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, England: Oxford University Press.
7. Bugg, J. M., & Crump, M. J. (2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: A review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 367.
8. Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Toth, J. P. (2008). Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1484-1494.
9. Cohen, J. D., Aston-Jones, G., & Gilzenrat, M. S. (2004). A system-level perspective on attention and cognitive control: Guided activation, adaptive gating, conflict monitoring, and exploitation vs. exploration. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of attention (pp. 71-90). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
10. Cohen, J. D., McClure, S. M., & Yu, A. J. (2007). Should I stay or should I go? How the human brain manages the trade-off between exploitation and exploration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362, 933-942.
11. Corballis, P. M., & Gratton, G. (2003). Independent control of processing strategies for different locations in the visual field. Biological Psychology, 64, 191-209.
12. Correa, A., Rao, A., & Nobre, A. C. (2009). Anticipating conflict facilitates controlled stimulus-response selection. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 1461-1472.
13. 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.
14. Crump, M. J., & Logan, G. D. (2010). Contextual control over task-set retrieval. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 2047-2053.
15. Crump, M. J., & Milliken, B. (2009). The flexibility of context-specific control: Evidence for context-driven generalization of item-specific control settings. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1523- 1532.
16. Crump, M. J., Vaquero, J. M., & Milliken, B. (2008). Context-specific learning and control: The roles of awareness, task relevance, and relative salience. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 22-36.
17. Dreisbach, G., & Haider, H. (2006). Preparatory adjustment of cognitive control in the task switching paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 334-338.
18. Fischer, R., & Hommel, B. (2012). Deep thinking increases task-set shielding and reduces shifting flexibility in dual-task performance. Cognition, 123, 303-307.
19. Fischer, R., Miller, J., & Schubert, T. (2007). Evidence for parallel semantic memory retrieval in dual tasks. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1685-1699.
20. 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.
21. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementations intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493-503.
22. Gollwitzer, P. M., Fujita, K., & Oettingen, G. (2004). Planning and the implementation of goals. In R. Baumeister & K. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory and applications (pp. 211-228). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
23. Goschke, T. (2003). Voluntary action and cognitive control from a cognitive neuroscience perspective. In S. Maasen, W. Prinz, & G. Roth (Eds.), Voluntary action: Brains, minds, and sociality (pp. 49-85). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
24. Goschke, T., & Dreisbach, G. (2008). Conflict-triggered goal shielding: Response conflicts attenuate background monitoring for prospective memory cues. Psychological Science, 19, 25-32.
25. Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480-506.
26. Heinemann, A., Kunde, W., & Kiesel, A. (2009). Context-specific primecongruency effects: On the role of conscious stimulus representations for cognitive control. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 966-976.
27. Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261-268.
28. Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368-1384.
29. Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. New York, NY: Appleton-Century.
30. King, J. A., Korb, F. M., & Egner, T. (2012). Priming of control: Implicit contextual cuing of top-down attentional set. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 8192-8200.
31. Klemen, J., Verbruggen, F., Skelton, C., & Chambers, C. D. (2011). Enhancement of perceptual representations by endogenous attention biases competition in response selection. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 2514-2527.
32. Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 1-14.
33. Koch, I., & Prinz, W. (2002). Process interference and code overlap in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 192-201.
34. Lehle, C., & Hübner, R. (2008). On-the-fly adaptation of selectivity in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 814 - 818.
35. Lehle, C., & Hübner, R. (2009). Strategic capacity sharing between two tasks: Evidence from tasks with the same and with different task sets. Psychological Research, 73, 707-726.
36. Lehle, C., Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2009). Serial or parallel processing in dual tasks: What is more effortful? Psychophysiology, 46, 502-509.
37. Lien, M. C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 212-238.
38. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393-434.
39. Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2006). Interpreting instructional cues in task switching procedures: The role of mediator retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 347- 363.
40. Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1072-1090.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. Luks, T. L., Simpson, G. V., Dale, C. L., & Hough, M. G. (2007). Preparatory allocation of attention and adjustments in conflict processing. NeuroImage, 35, 949-958.
44. Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2005). Increased control demand results in serial processing: Evidence from dual-task performance. Psychological Science, 16, 833-840.
45. Meyer, D. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1997). A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. Psychological Review, 104, 3-65.
46. Miller, J. (1987). Priming is not necessary for selective-attention failures: Semantic effects of unattended, unprimed letters. Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 419-434.
47. Miller, J., & Alderton, M. (2006). Backward response-level crosstalk in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 149 -165.
48. Miller, J., Ulrich, R., & Rolke, B. (2009). On the optimality of serial and parallel processing in the psychological refractory period paradigm: Effects of the distribution of stimulus onset asynchronies. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 273-310.
49. Miyake, A., Emerson, M. J., Padilla, F., & Ahn, J. C. (2004). Inner speech as a retrieval aid for task goals: The effects of cue type and articulatory suppression in the random task cuing paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 115, 123-142.
50. Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 193-251.
51. Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research (Vol. 4, pp. 515-549). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
52. Oriet, C., Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2005). Symbolic distance affects two processing loci in the number comparison task. Memory & Cognition, 33, 913-926.
53. Plessow, F., Schade, S., Kirschbaum, C., & Fischer, R. (2012). Better not to deal with two tasks at the same time when stressed? Acute psychosocial stress reduces task shielding in dual-task performance. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12, 557-570.
54. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3-25.
55. Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R., & Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160-174.
56. 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.
57. Schubert, T., Fischer, R., & Stelzel, C. (2008). Response activation in overlapping tasks and the response-selection bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 376-397.
58. Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2004). The costs of changing the representation of action: Response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 566-582.
59. Stelzel, C., Brandt, S. A., & Schubert, T. (2009). Neural mechanisms of concurrent stimulus processing in dual tasks. NeuroImage, 48, 237-248.
60. Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schröter, 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.
61. Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2002). All-or-none bottleneck versus capacity sharing accounts of the psychological refractory period phenomenon. Psychological Research, 66, 274-286.
62. Tombu, M., & Jolicoeur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3-18.
63. Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115, 518-525.
64. Vietze, I., & Wendt, M. (2009). Context specificity of conflict frequencydependent control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1391-1400.
65. Wendt, M., & Kiesel, A. (2011). Conflict adaptation in time: Foreperiods as contextual cues for attentional adjustment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 910-916.
66. Wendt, M., Kluwe, R. H., & Vietze, I. (2008). Location-specific versus hemisphere-specific adaptation of processing selectivity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 135-140.
67. Wendt, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., & Jacobsen, T. (2012). Conflict-induced perceptual filtering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 675-686.
68. 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.
69. Zwosta, K., Hommel, B., Goschke, T., & Fischer, R. (2013). Mood states determine the degree of task shielding in dual-task performance. Cognition & Emotion, 27, 1142-1152.