Advertisement

Target–distractor congruency: sequential effects in a temporal flanker task

  • Miriam Tomat
  • Mike Wendt
  • Aquiles Luna-Rodriguez
  • Michael Sprengel
  • Thomas Jacobsen
Original Article
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

Ethical standards

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Akçay, Ç, & Hazeltine, E. (2007). Conflict monitoring and feature overlap: Two sources of sequential modulations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 742–748.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akçay, Ç, & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Domain-specific conflict adaptation without feature repetitions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(3), 505–511.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0084-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blais, C., & Verguts, T. (2012). Increasing set size breaks down sequential congruency: Evidence for an associative locus of cognitive control. Acta Psychologica, 141, 133–139.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bugg, J. M. (2008). Opposing influences on conflict-driven adaptation in the Eriksen flanker task. Memory and Cognition, 36(7), 1217–1227.  https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.7.1217.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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/10.1037/0096-1523.11.5.529.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Correa, Á, Capucci, P., Nobre, A. C., & Lupiáñez, J. (2010). The two sides of temporal orienting: Facilitating perceptual selection, disrupting response selection. Experimental Psychology, 57(2), 142–148.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eriksen, C. W. (1995). The flankers task and response competition: A useful tool for investigating a variety of cognitive problems. Visual Cognition, 2(2–3), 101–118.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13506289508401726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480–506.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hazeltine, E., Lightman, E., Schwarb, H., & Schumacher, E. H. (2011). The boundaries of sequential modulations: Evidence for set-level control. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 37(6), 1898–1914.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024662.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 68(1), 1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0132-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Kim, S., & Cho, Y. S. (2014). Congruency sequence effect without feature integration and contingency learning. Acta Psychologica, 149, 60–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.03.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2006). Sequential modulations of correspondence effects across spatial dimensions and tasks. Memory and Cognition, 34(2), 356–367.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193413.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological bulletin, 109(2), 163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 19(4), 750–757.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0257-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Purmann, S., Badde, S., & Wendt, M. (2009). Adjustments to recent and frequent conflict reflect two distinguishable mechanisms. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16(2), 350–355.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.350.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2002). Micro- and macro-adjustment of task set: Activation and suppression in conflict tasks. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 66, 312–2323.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Schmidt, J. R. (2013). Questioning conflict adaptation: Proportion congruent and Gratton effects reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(4), 615–630.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0373-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J. C., Cheesman, J., & Besner, D. (2007). Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control. Consciousness and Cognition, 16(2), 421–435.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2006.06.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Schmidt, J. R., & De Houwer, J. (2011). Now you see it, now you don’t: Controlling for contingencies and stimulus repetitions eliminates the Gratton effect. Acta Psychologica, 138(1), 176–186.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.06.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Schmidt, J. R., & Weissman, D. H. (2014). Congruency sequence effects without feature integration or contingency learning confounds. PLoS One, 9(7), e102337.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102337.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of experimental psychology, 18(6), 643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ullsperger, M., Bylsma, L. M., & Botvinick, M. M. (2005). The conflict adaptation effect: It’s not just priming. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(4), 467–472.  https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.5.4.467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Verbruggen, F., Notebaert, W., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Stimulus- and response-conflict-induced cognitive control in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13(2), 328–333.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193852.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115, 518–525.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Verguts, T., Notebaert, W., Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2011). Post-conflict slowing: Cognitive adaptation after conflict processing. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18(1), 76–82.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0016-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Weissman, D. H., Egner, T., Hawks, Z., & Link, J. (2015). The congruency sequence effect emerges when the distracter precedes the target. Acta Psychologica, 156, 8–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.01.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Weissman, D. H., Jiang, J., & Egner, T. (2014). Determinants of congruency sequence effects without learning and memory confounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 40(5), 2022–2037.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037454.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Wendt, M., Kluwe, R. H., & Peters, A. (2006). Sequential modulations of interference evoked by processing task-irrelevant stimulus features. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 644–667.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.644.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wendt, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., & Jacobsen, T. (2012). Conflict-induced perceptual filtering. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 675–686.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025902.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. Wühr, P., & Kunde, W. (2008). Pre-cueing spatial S–R correspondence: Is there regulation of expected response conflict? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 872–883.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.4.872.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Experimental Psychology UnitHelmut-Schmidt-University/University of the Federal Armed Forces HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Medical School HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations