The bivalency effect: adjustment of cognitive control without response set priming
- 139 Downloads
The occasional occurrence of bivalent stimuli, that is, stimuli with features relevant to two tasks, slows performance on subsequent tasks with univalent stimuli, including those which have no common features with bivalent stimuli (i.e., the “bivalency effect”). We have suggested that the bivalency effect might stem from an episodic context binding arising from the occasional occurrence of bivalent stimuli. However, as the same response set is used usually for univalent and bivalent stimuli, bivalent stimulus features may be negatively primed via response features. We investigated this possibility in two experiments, in which one group of participants used the same response keys for all tasks and another group used separate response keys. The results showed a comparable bivalency effect in both groups. Thus, it rather results from episodic context binding than from response set priming.
This work was supported by a grant from the Janggen-Pöhn Foundation to A. Rey-Mermet and by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant 130104) to B. Meier. We thank Martina Godosev, Cornelia Häfliger, Sara Mössinger, Isabelle Lüdhi, and Jona Hermann for testing the participants, as well as Brigitte Weiermann, Nicolas Rothen and Josephine Cock for helpful comments on an earlier version.
- Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: conscious and non-conscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
- Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (1999). Task-switching: positive and negative priming of task-set. In G. W. Humphreys, J. Duncan, & A. M. Treisman (Eds.), Attention, space and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 273–296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (2000). Task switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 35–70). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
- Fagot, C. (1994). Chronometric investigations of task switching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, San Diego: University of California.Google Scholar
- Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Arch Psychol, 89, 5–82.Google Scholar
- Paprotta, I., Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. X. (1999). Object recognition and goal-directed eye or hand movements are coupled by visual attention. In W. Becker, H. Deubel, & T. Mergner (Eds.), Current oculomotor research: physiological and psychological aspects (pp. 241–248). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar