Going, going, gone? Proactive control prevents the congruency sequence effect from rapid decay

Psychological Research

Volumn 78, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 483-493

  Duthoo, W ^a   Abrahamse, E L ^a   Braem, S ^a   Notebaert, W ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; STROOP TEST; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); EXECUTIVE FUNCTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; REACTION TIME; STROOP TEST; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84902660349     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-013-0498-4     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Aarts, E., & Roelofs, A. (2011). Attentional control in anterior cingulate cortex based on probabilistic cueing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 716-727.
2. 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, & Cognition, 39, 1552-1562.
3. Akçay, Ç., & Hazeltine, E. (2007). Feature-overlap and conflict monitoring: two sources of sequential modulations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 742-748.
4. 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.
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. R., & 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). New York: Oxford University Press.
7. Bugg, J. M., & Chanani, S. (2011). List-wide control is not entirely elusive: evidence from the picture-word Stroop. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 930-936.
8. Bugg, J. M., & Crump, J. C. (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, 367.
9. Burton, A. M., White, D., & McNeill, A. (2010). The Glasgow Face Matching Test. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 286-291.
10. Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2012). Conflicts as aversive signals. Brain and Cognition, 78, 94-98.
11. Duthoo, W., & Notebaert, W. (2012). Conflict adaptation: it is not what you expect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1993-2007.
12. Duthoo, W., Wühr, P., & Notebaert, W. (2013). The hot-hand fallacy in cognitive control: repetition expectancy modulates the congruency sequence effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1-8.
13. Egner, T. (2007). Congruency effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 380-390.
14. Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 374-380.
15. Egner, T., Ely, S., & Grinband, J. (2010). Going, going, gone: characterizing the time-course of congruency sequence effects. Frontiers in psychology, 1, 154.
16. Egner, T., Etkin, A., Gale, S., & Hirsch, J. (2008). Dissociable neural systems resolve conflict from emotional versus nonemotional distracters. Cerebral Cortex, 18, 1475-1484.
17. 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.
18. Hillgruber, A. (1912). Fortlaufende Arbeit und Willensbetätigung. Untersuchungen zur Psychologie und Philosophie, 1, 6.
19. Hommel, B., Fischer, R., Colzato, L. S., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., & Cellini, C. (2012). The effect of fMRI (noise) on cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 290-301.
20. 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.
21. Jiménez, L., & Méndez, 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, 31, 271-284.
22. Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W., Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303, 1023-1026.
23. Locke, H. S., & Braver, T. S. (2008). Motivational influences on cognitive control: behavior, brain activation, and individual differences. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 99-112.
24. 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.
25. Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450-452.
26. Notebaert, W., Gevers, W., Verbruggen, F., & Liefooghe, B. (2006). Top-down and bottom-up sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 112-117.
27. Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2007). Dissociating conflict adaptation from feature integration: a multiple regression approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 1256-1260.
28. Scherbaum, S., Fischer, R., Dshemuchadse, M., & Goschke, T. (2011). The dynamics of cognitive control: evidence for within-trial conflict adaptation from frequency-tagged EEG. Psychophysiology, 48, 591-600.
29. Schlaghecken, F., & Martini, P. (2012). Context, not conflict, drives cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 272-278.
30. Schmidt, J. R. (2013). Questioning conflict adaptation: proportion congruent and Gratton effects reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1-16.
31. 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.
32. Song, H., & Schwarz, N. (2008). If it's hard to read, it's hard to do processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychological Science, 19(10), 986-988.
33. Stevens, M., Lammertyn, J., Verbruggen, F., & Vandierendonk, A. (2006). Tscope: a C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS Windows platform. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 280-286.
34. Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Berger, J. (1992). Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words. Memory & Cognition, 20, 727-735.
35. 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.
36. van den Wildenberg, W. P. M, Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Wylie, S. A. (2012). Once bitten, twice shy: on the transient nature of congruency sequence effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 264.
37. van der Burg, E., Olivers, C. N., Bronkhorst, A. W., & Theeuwes, J. (2008). Pip and pop: nonspatial auditory signals improve spatial visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 1053-1065.
38. Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115, 518-525.
39. Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2009). Adaptation by binding: a learning account of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 252-257.
40. Wendt, M., & Kiesel, A. (2011). Conflict adaptation in time: foreperiods as contextual cues for attentional adjustment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 910-916.
41. Wühr, P., & Ansorge, U. (2005). Exploring trial-by-trial modulations of the Simon effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 705-731.