Target–distractor congruency: sequential effects in a temporal flanker task
The Congruency Sequence Effect (CSE) denotes the common finding that distractor–target Congruency Effects are reduced after incongruent compared to after congruent trials. Although the CSE is widely attributed to attentional adjustment (i.e., increasing or decreasing the bias in attentional weights regarding processing the target or distractor), unequivocal evidence for this assumption is missing. To investigate the CSE and attentional adjustment we used a temporal flanker task and intermixed a “temporal search task”, in which a target stimulus occurred randomly at one of two temporal positions, corresponding to the temporal positions of the target and the distractor occurrence in the temporal flanker task. We observed a CSE that could not be explained in terms of feature sequences, distractor-related contingencies, or a strategy of reversed distractor–response priming after incongruent trials. Furthermore, following a temporal search task trial, the Congruency Effect was larger when the search target occurred on the first than on the second temporal position, demonstrating that a reduced attentional bias towards the second temporal position increased interference from a distractor presented on the first temporal position. This supports a crucial assumption of the attentional adjustment account of the CSE. Performance in the temporal search task, however, provided no evidence for attentional adjustment.
This research was funded by a grant from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) WE 4105/1-2 to Mike Wendt.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Coles, M. G. H., Gratton, G., Bashore, T. R., Eriksen, C. W., & Donchin, E. (1985). A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(5), 529–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-15184.108.40.2069.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jost, K., Wendt, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., Löw, A., & Jacobsen, T. (2017). Strategic control over extent and timing of distractor-based response activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(2), 326–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000326.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nieuwenhuis, S., Stins, J. F., Posthuma, D., Polderman, T. J. C., Boomsma, D. I., & de Geus, E. J. (2006). Accounting for sequential trial effects in the flanker task: Conflict adaptation or associative priming? Memory and Cognition, 34(6), 1260–1272. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193270.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sprengel, M., Hofmann, M. J., Wendt, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., Tamm, S., Jacobsen, T., & Jacobs, A. M. Conflict monitoring predicts N1-adaption in a temporal flanker task (in preparation).Google Scholar
- Wendt, M., Heldmann, M., Münte, T. F., & Kluwe, R. H. (2007). Disentangling sequential effects of stimulus- and response-related conflict and stimulus–response repetition using brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(7), 1104–1112. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.7.1104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wendt, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., & Jacobsen, T. (2014). Utility-based early modulation of processing distracting stimulus information. The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 34(50), 16720–16725. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0754-14.2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar