Even with time, conflict adaptation is not made of expectancies

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 5, Issue SEP, 2014, Pages

  Jiménez, Luis ^a   Méndez, Amavia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Cognitive control; Conflict adaptation; Congruency sequence effect; Expectancies; Reactive control; Stroop task

Indexed keywords

EID: 84907094581     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01042     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Duthoo, W., Abrahamse, E. L., Braem, S., and Notebaert, W. (2014). Going, going, gone? Proactive control prevents the congruency sequence effect from rapid decay. Psychol. Res. 78, 483-493. doi: 10.1007/s00426-013-0498-4
2. Duthoo, W., Wühr, P., and Notebaert, W. (2013). The hot-hand fallacy in cognitive control: repetition expectancy modulates the congruency sequence effect. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 20, 798-805. doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0390-7
3. Egner, T., Ely, S., and Grinband, J. (2010). Going, going, gone: characterizing the time-course of congruency sequence effects. Front. Psychol. 1:154. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00154
4. Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., and Vu, K.-P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychol. Res. 68, 1-17. doi: 10.1007/s00426-003-0132-y
5. Jarvik, M. E. (1951). Probability learning and a negative recency effect in the serial anticipation of alternative symbols. J. Exp. Psychol. 41, 291-297. doi: 10.1037/h0056878
6. Jiménez, L., and Méndez, A. (2013). It is not what you expect: dissociating conflict adaptation from expectancies in a Stroop task. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 39, 271-284. doi: 10.1037/a0027734
7. Kim, S., and Cho, Y. S. (2014). Congruency sequence effect without feature integration and contingency learning. Acta Psychol. 149, 60-68. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.03.004
8. Lamers, M. J. M., and Roelofs, A. (2011). Attentional control adjustments in Eriksen and Stroop tasks performance can be independent of response conflict. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 64, 1056-1081. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2010.523792
9. Mayr, U., Awh, E., and Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nat. Neurosci. 6, 450-452. doi: 10.1038/nn1051
10. Mordkoff, J. T. (2012). Observation: three reasons to avoid having half of the trials be congruent in a four-alternative forced-choice experiment on sequential modulation. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 19, 750-757. doi: 10.3758/s13423-012-0257-3
11. Notebaert, W., Gevers, W., Verbruggen, F., and Liefooghe, B. (2006). Top-down and bottom-up sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 13, 112-117. doi: 10.3758/BF03193821
12. Perruchet, P., Cleeremans, A., and Destrebecqz, A. (2006). Dissociating the effects of automatic activation and explicit expectancy on reaction times in a simple associative learning task. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 32, 955-965. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.5.955
13. Schlaghecken, F., and Martini, P. (2012). Context, not conflict, drives cognitive control. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 38, 272-282. doi: 10.1037/a0025791
14. Schmidt, J. R., and De Houwer, J. (2011). Now you see it, now you don't: controlling for contingencies and stimulus repetitions eliminates the Gratton effect. Acta Psychol. 138, 176-186. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.06.002
15. Schmidt, J. R., and Weissman, D. H. (2014). Congruence sequence effects without feature integration or contingency learning confounds. PLoS ONE 9:e102337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102337