Abstract
Sequential modulations have been found in both conflict and spatial orienting tasks. The former is called congruency sequence effects (CSE) and the latter is called validity sequence effects (VSE). Although the two effects have similar phenomenon descriptions, the relationship of the cognitive control mechanisms under the two effects is still unclear. Using a modified attentional network test (ANT), a flanker task and an arrow cueing task are integrated into a single task, which enables the test of the possible interactions between CSE and VSE. Since a confound-minimized design is used, the observed sequence effects cannot be attributed to the feature integration of low-level stimulus features or the contingency learning. It was found that the CSE are only significant when the arrow cue in preceding trial is invalid, and the VSE are only significant when the target letter in preceding trial is congruent with the distractor letters. The findings suggest that the sequential modulations during orienting and executive control of attention networks are highly interacted with each other, and the sequence effects in these networks are possibly controlled by a complex and multifaceted adaptive control mechanism.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrahamse, E., Braem, S., Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2016). Grounding cognitive control in associative learning. Psychological Bulletin, 142(7), 693–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000047
Akcay, C., & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Domain-specific conflict adaptation without feature repetitions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(3), 505–511. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0084-y
Ansorge, U., Gozli, D. G., & Goller, F. (2019). Investigating the contribution of task and response repetitions to the sequential modulations of attentional cueing effects. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 83(6), 1251–1268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0950-y
Arora, S., Lawrence, M. A., & Klein, R. M. (2020). The attention network test database: ADHD and cross-cultural applications. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 388. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00388
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
Boy, F., Husain, M., & Sumner, P. (2010). Unconscious inhibition separates two forms of cognitive control. PNAS, 107(24), 11134–11139. https://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1001925107
Braem, S., Bugg, J. M., Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J. C., & Egner, T. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(9), 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.002
Braem, A., Duthoo, E. L., & Notebaert, W. (2014). What determines the specificity of conflict adaptation? A review, critical analysis, and proposed synthesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1134. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01134
Chica, A. B., Martin-Arevalo, E., Botta, F., & Lupianez, J. (2014). The spatial orienting paradigm: How to design and interpret spatial attention experiments. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 40, 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.002
Dignath, D., Johannsen, L., Hommel, B., & Kiesel, A. (2019). Reconciling cognitive-control and episodic-retrieval accounts of sequential conflict modulation: Binding of control-states into event-files. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(9), 1265–1270. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000673
Dodd, M. D., & Pratt, J. (2007). The effect of previous trial type on inhibition of return. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 71(4), 411–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0028-0
Duthoo, W., Abrahamse, E. L., Braem, S., Boehler, C. N., & Notebaert, W. (2014). The heterogeneous world of congruency sequence effects: An update. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1001. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01001
Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(10), 374–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.001
Egner, T. (2014). Creatures of habit (and control): A multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1247. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01247
Egner, T. (2017). Conflict adaptation: Past, present, and future of the congruency sequence effect as an index of cognitive control. In T. Egner (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of cognitive control. Wiley-Blackwell.
Egner, T., Etkin, A., Gale, S., & Hirsch, J. (2008). Dissociable neural systems resolve conflict from emotional versus nonemotional distracters. Cerebral Cortex, 18, 1475–1484. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm179
Erel, H., & Levy, D. A. (2016). Orienting of visual attention in aging. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 69, 357–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.010
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267
Fan, J., Byrne, J., Worden, M. S., Guise, K. G., Mccandliss, B. D., Fossella, J., & Posner, M. I. (2007). The relation of brain oscillations to attentional networks. Journal of Neuroscience the Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 27(23), 6197–6206. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1833-07.2007
Fan, J., Gu, X., Guise, K. G., Liu, X., Fossella, J., Wang, H., & Posner, M. I. (2009). Testing the behavioral interaction and integration of attentional networks. Brain & Cognition, 70(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.02.002
Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(3), 340–347. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892902317361886
Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze cueing of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 694–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.694
Gomez, C. M., Flores, A., Digiacomo, M. R., & Vazquez-Marrufo, M. (2009). Sequential P3 effects in a Posner’s spatial cueing paradigm: Trial-by-trial learning of the predictive value of the cue. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 69(2), 155–167
Gratton, G., Coles, M., & 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
Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007
Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. (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
Ilaria, B., & Maria, C. (2019). Executive control of emotional conflict. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 359. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00359
Jongen, E. M., & Smulders, F. T. (2007). Sequence effects in a spatial cueing task: Endogenous orienting is sensitive to orienting in the preceding trial. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 71(5), 516–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-006-0065-3
Kim, C., Chung, C., & Kim, J. (2012). Conflict adjustment through domain-specific multiple cognitive control mechanisms. Brain Research, 1444, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.023
Kim, S., & Cho, Y. S. (2014). Congruency sequence effect without feature integration and contingency learning. Acta Pathologica, Microbiologica, Et Immunologica Scandinavica, 149, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.03.004
Kunde, W., & Wuhr, P. (2006). Sequential modulations of correspondence effects across spatial dimensions and tasks. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2012.01.023
Lim, C. E., & Cho, Y. S. (2018). Determining the scope of control underlying the congruency sequence effect: Roles of stimulus-response mapping and response mode. Acta Pathologica, Microbiologica, Et Immunologica Scandinavica, 190, 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.08.012
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335558008248231
Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ne.13.030190.000325
Qian, Q., Wang, X., Song, M., & Wang, F. (2017). Gazes induce similar sequential effects as arrows in a target discrimination task. Paper presented at the international conference on intelligence science
Qian, Q., Pan, J., Song, M., Feng, Y., & Shinomori, K. (2020). Feature integration is not the whole story of the sequence effects of symbolic cueing. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 32(7), 645–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2020.1817928
Qian, Q., Shinomori, K., & Song, M. (2012a). Sequence effects by non-predictive arrow cues. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 76(3), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0339-2
Qian, Q., Song, M., Shinomori, K., & Wang, F. (2012b). The functional role of alternation advantage in the sequence effect of symbolic cueing with nonpredictive arrow cues. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74(7), 1430–1436. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0337-5
Qian, Q., Wang, F., Feng, Y., & Song, M. (2015). Spatial organisation between targets and cues affects the sequence effect of symbolic cueing. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(07), 855–865. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2015.1048249
Qian, Q., Wang, F., Song, M., Feng, Y., & Shinomori, K. (2017). Spatial correspondence learning is critical for the sequence effects of symbolic cueing. Japanese Psychological Research, 59(3), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12148
Qian, Q., Wang, F., Song, M., Feng, Y., & Shinomori, K. (2018). Sequence effects of the involuntary and the voluntary components of symbolic cueing. Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 80(3), 662–668. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1472-9
Schlaghecken, F., Refaat, M., & Maylor, E. A. (2011). Multiple systems for cognitive control: Evidence from a hybrid prime-Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(5), 1542–1553. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024327
Schmidt, J. R. (2019). Evidence against conflict monitoring and adaptation: An updated review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 753–771. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1520-z
Schmidt, J. R., & 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
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
Schumacher, E. H., & Hazeltine, E. (2016). Hierarchical task representation: Task files and response selection. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), 449–454. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416665085
Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory s-r compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(3), 300–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020586
Stroop, J. R. (1992). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.121.1.15
Verbruggen, F., Notebaert, W., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Stimulus- and response-conflict-induced cognitive control in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 328–333. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193852
Weissman, D. H, Hawks, Z. W, & Egner, T. (2015). Different levels of learning interact to shape the congruency sequence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory & Cognition, 42(4). https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000182
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
Whitehead, P. S., Brewer, G. A., & Blais, C. (2018). Are cognitive control processes reliable? Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition, 45(5). https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000632
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by the National Science Foundation of China (32060193 to QQ, 61962031 to YL, 62062047 to YF, 81771926, 61763022, 82172058 to YF, and 61872231 to MS), Yunnan Fundamental Research Projects (202101AT070082) to QQ, the Foundation of Yunnan Key Laboratory of Computer Technology Applications to QQ, and by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (KAKENHI:18H03323) and Kochi University of Technology (Focused Research Laboratory Support Grant) to KS.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Qian, Q., Li, Y., Song, M. et al. Interactive modulations between congruency sequence effects and validity sequence effects. Psychological Research 86, 1944–1957 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01612-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01612-4