Top-down versus bottom-up: when instructions overcome automatic retrieval
- 369 Downloads
Research on human action has extensively covered controlled and automatic processes in the transformation of stimulus information into motor action, and how conflict between both types of processes is solved. However, the question of how automatic stimulus–response (S–R) translation per se depends on top-down control states remains unanswered. The present study addressed this issue by manipulating top-down control state (instructed S–R mapping) and automatic bottom-up processing (retrieval of S–R memory traces) independently from each other. Using a color/shape task-switching paradigm, we compared cross-talk triggered by distractor stimuli, for which the instructed S–R mapping and the S–R associations compiled at the beginning of the experiment matched, with the cross-talk triggered by distractor stimuli, for which (re-)instructed mapping and compiled S–R associations did not match. We show that the latter distractors do not yield any cross-talk in RTs and even reversed cross-talk in error rates, demonstrating that automatic S–R retrieval is modulated by top-down control states.
This research was supported by a grant of the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-09-BLAN-0318).
- Liefooghe, B. Wenke, D. & De Houwer, J. (2012). Instruction-based task-rule congruency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition (in press).Google Scholar
- Hommel, B. (2000). The prepared reflex: automaticity and control in stimulus-response translation. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: attention and performance XVIII (pp. 247–273). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Woodworth, R. S. (1938). Experimental psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar