Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

One-shot stimulus-control associations generalize over different stimulus viewpoints and exemplars

  • Published:
Memory & Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cognitive control processes are central to adaptive behavior, but how control is applied in a context-appropriate manner is not fully understood. One way to produce context-sensitive control is by mnemonically linking particular control settings to specific stimuli that demanded those settings in a prior encounter. In support of this episodic reinstatement of control hypothesis, recent studies have produced evidence for the formation of stimulus-control associations in one-shot, prime-probe learning paradigms. However, since those studies employed perceptually identical stimuli across prime and probe presentations, it is not yet known how generalizable one-shot stimulus-control associations are. In the current study, we therefore probed whether associations formed between a prime object and the control process of task-switching would generalize to probe objects seen from a different viewpoint (Experiment 1), to different exemplars of the same object type (Experiment 2), and to different members of the object category (Experiment 3). We replicated prior findings of one-shot control associations for identical prime/probe stimuli. Importantly, we additionally found that these episodic control effects are expressed regardless of changes in viewpoint and exemplar, but do not seem to generalize to other category members. These findings elucidate the scope of generalization of the episodic reinstatement of cognitive control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abrahamse, E., Braem, S., Notebeart, W., & Verguts, T. (2016). Grounding cognitive control in associative learning. Psychological Bulletin, 142(7), 693–728.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In M. Moscovitch & C. Umilta (Eds.), Attention and Performance (15th ed., pp. 421–452). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blais, C., Robidoux, S., Risko, E. F., & Besner, D. (2007). Item-specific adaptation and the conflict-monitoring hypothesis: A computational model. Psychological Review, 114, 1076–1086.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braem, S., & Egner, T. (2018). Getting a Grip on Cognitive Flexibility. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(6), 470–476.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Brosowsky, N. P., & Crump, M. J. C. (2018). Memory-guided selective attention: Single experiences with conflict have long-lasting effects on cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(8), 1134–1153.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bugg, J. M., & Dey, A. (2018). When stimulus-driven control settings compete: On the dominance of categories as cues for control. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 44(12), 1905–1932.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bugg, J. M., & Hutchison, K. A. (2013). Converging evidence for control of color-word Stroop interference at the item level. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 39(2), 433–449.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Chanani, S. (2011). Why it is too early to lose control in accounts of item-specific proportion congruency effects. Journal of experimental psychology Human Perception and Performance, 37(3), 844–859.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, Y. C., & Egner, T. (2017). Cueing cognitive flexibility: Item-specific learning of switch readiness. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 43(12), 1950–1960.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, Y. C., & Egner, T. (2019). Cortical and subcortical contributions to context-control learning. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 99, 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, Y. C., Jiang, J., & Egner, T. (2017). The caudate nucleus mediates learning of stimulus-control state associations. The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 37(4), 1028–1038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crump, M. J., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS One, 8(3), e57410.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G., & Froeber, K. (2018). On how to be flexible (or not): modulation of the stability-flexibility balance. Current Directions in Psychological Science., 28, 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egner, T. (2014). Creatures of habit (and control): A multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1247.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Egner, T. (2023). Principles of cognitive control over task-focus and task-switching. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2, 702–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frings, C., Moeller, B., & Rothermund, K. (2013). Retrieval of event files can be conceptually mediated. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(4), 700–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frings, C., Hommel, B., Koch, I., Rothermund, K., Dignath, D., Giesen, C., Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., Mayr, S., Moeller, B., Möller, M., Pfister, R., & Philipp, A. (2020). Binding and Retrieval in Action Control (BRAC). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(5), 375–387.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 University Press.

  • Hebart, M. N., Dickter, A. H., Kidder, A., Kwok, W. Y., Corriveau, A., Van Wicklin, C., & Baker, C. I. (2019). THINGS: A database of 1,854 object concepts and more than 26,000 naturalistic object images. PLOS ONE, 14(10), e0223792.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–878. discussion 878-937.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, J., Heller, K., & Egner, T. (2014). Bayesian modeling of flexible cognitive control. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 46, 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 175–219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019842

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moutsopoulou, K., Yang, Q., Desantis, A., & Waszak, F. (2015). Stimulus–classification and stimulus–action associations: Effects of repetition learning and durability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(9), 1744–1757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muenster, N.D., Schmalbrock, P., Frings, C. (under review). A question of perspective: Perspective as a feature in stimulus-response binding. Visual Cognition

  • Pfeuffer, C. U., Moutsopoulou, K., Pfister, R., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2017). The power of words: On item-specific stimulus–response associations formed in the absence of action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(2), 328–347.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeuffer, C. U., Hosp, T., Kimmig, E., Moutsopoulou, K., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Defining stimulus representation in stimulus-response associations formed on the basis of task execution and verbal codes. Psychological research, 82(4), 744–758.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, T., Moeller, B., & Frings, C. (2016). Five shades of grey: Generalization in distractor based retrieval of S-R episodes. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 78(8), 2307–2312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spapé, M. M., & Hommel, B. (2008). He said, she said: Episodic retrieval induces conflict adaptation in an auditory Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(6), 1117–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spinelli, G., & Lupker, S. J. (2020). Item-specific control of attention in the Stroop task: Contingency learning is not the whole story in the item-specific proportion-congruent effect. Memory & Cognition, 48(3), 426–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97–136.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115, 518–525.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46(4), 361–413.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, P. S., Pfeuffer, C. U., & Egner, T. (2020). Memories of control: One-shot episodic learning of item-specific stimulus-control associations. Cognition, 199, 104220.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, P. S., Mahmoud, Y., Seli, P., & Egner, T. (2021). Mind-wandering at encoding, but not retrieval, disrupts one-shot stimulus control learning. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 83, 2968–2982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, P. S., Pfeuffer, C. U., & Egner, T. (2022). Assessing the durability of one-shot stimulus-control bindings. Journal of Cognition, 5(1), 26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by NIH grant MH116967 (T.E.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Peter S. Whitehead & Tobias Egner

Authors
  1. Peter S. Whitehead
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tobias Egner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Egner.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Practices Statement

All data and code are available via the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/7kwtu/

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 17 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Whitehead, P.S., Egner, T. One-shot stimulus-control associations generalize over different stimulus viewpoints and exemplars. Mem Cogn (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01573-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-024-01573-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation