Skip to main content

Post-conflict slowing after incongruent stimuli: from general to conflict-specific

Psychological Research volume 81, pages 611–628 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Encountering a cognitive conflict not only slows current performance, but it can also affect subsequent performance, in particular when the conflict is induced with bivalent stimuli (i.e., stimuli with relevant features for two different tasks) or with incongruent trials (i.e., stimuli with relevant features for two response alternatives). The post-conflict slowing following bivalent stimuli, called “bivalency effect”, affects all subsequent stimuli, irrespective of whether the subsequent stimuli share relevant features with the conflict stimuli. To date, it is unknown whether the conflict induced by incongruent stimuli results in a similar post-conflict slowing. To investigate this, we performed six experiments in which participants switched between two tasks. In one task, incongruent stimuli appeared occasionally; in the other task, stimuli shared no feature with the incongruent trials. The results showed an initial performance slowing that affected all tasks after incongruent trials. On further trials, however, the slowing only affected the task sharing features with the conflict stimuli. Therefore, the post-conflict slowing following incongruent stimuli is first general and then becomes conflict-specific across trials. These findings are discussed within current task switching and cognitive control accounts.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. In the present study, participants were instructed to perform each task twice in succession (see Fig. 1). This results in switch and repetition trials which allows to examine whether responding to incongruent stimuli affects switch and repetition trials differentially, and thus contributes to switch costs (i.e., the slower performance on switch compared to repetition trials). We carried out all the analyses including switch vs. repetition as an additional independent variable. Overall, this resulted in the same pattern of findings.

  2. In the analyses of the impact of incongruent trials on subsequent congruent trials, we focussed on reaction times data because accuracy on univalent and congruent trials was close to ceiling (mean accuracy 98 %) and even at ceiling in some conditions (see “Appendix”).

  3. This may explain why the congruency effects were so large in the present study. It is possible that participants were slower on incongruent trials than on congruent trials not only because incongruent trials induced a conflict between two response alternatives but also because they induced an orienting response due to their infrequent occurrence.

References

  • Akçay, Ç., & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Domain-specific conflict adaptation without feature repetitions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(3), 505–511. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0084-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (1999). Task-switching: Positive and negative priming of task-set. In G. W. Humphrey, J. Duncan, & A. Treisman (Eds.), Attention, space and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 273–296). New York: 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 Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.108.3.624.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braem, S., Abrahamse, E. L., Duthoo, W., & Notebaert, W. (2014). What determines the specificity of conflict adaptation? A review, critical analysis, and proposed synthesis. Frontiers in Psychology,. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braem, S., Verguts, T., Roggeman, C., & Notebaert, W. (2012). Reward modulates adaptations to conflict. Cognition, 125(2), 324–332. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 106–113. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2008). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. Towse (Eds.), Variation in Working Memory (pp. 76–106). Oxford University Press.

  • Chang, A., Chen, C.-C., Li, H.-H., & Li, C.-S. R. (2014). Event-related potentials for post-error and post-conflict slowing. PLoS One, 9(6), e99909. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099909.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Crump, M. J. C., Gong, Z., & Milliken, B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 316–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crump, M. J. C., Vaquero, J. M. M., & Milliken, B. (2008). Context-specific learning and control: The roles of awareness, task relevance, and relative salience. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 22–36. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2007.01.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duthoo, W., Abrahamse, E. L., Braem, S., Boehler, C. N., & Notebaert, W. (2014a). The heterogeneous world of congruency sequence effects: An update. Frontiers in Psychology,. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duthoo, W., Abrahamse, E. L., Braem, S., & Notebaert, W. (2014b). Going, going, gone? Proactive control prevents the congruency sequence effect from rapid decay. Psychological Research, 78(4), 483–493. doi:10.1007/s00426-013-0498-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Egner, T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 380–390. doi:10.3758/CABN.7.4.380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(10), 374–380. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Egner, T., Delano, M., & Hirsch, J. (2007). Separate conflict-specific cognitive control mechanisms in the human brain. NeuroImage, 35(2), 940–948. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.11.061.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Egner, T., Ely, S., & Grinband, J. (2010). Going, going, gone: characterizing the time-course of congruency sequence effects. Cognition, 1, 154. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, G. O., & McDaniel, M. A. (2010). Prospective memory and what costs do not reveal about retrieval processes: A commentary on Smith, Hunt, McVay, and McConnell (2007). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 1082–1088. doi:10.1037/a0019184.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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(1), 143–149. doi:10.3758/BF03203267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Duque, D., & Knight, M. (2008). Cognitive control: Dynamic, sustained, and voluntary influences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(2), 340–355. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.34.2.340.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freitas, A. L., Bahar, M., Yang, S., & Banai, R. (2007). Contextual adjustments in cognitive control across tasks. Psychological Science, 18(12), 1040–1043.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Funes, M. J., Lupiáñez, J., & Humphreys, G. (2010a). Analyzing the generality of conflict adaptation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(1), 147–161. doi:10.1037/a0017598.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Funes, M. J., Lupiáñez, J., & Humphreys, G. (2010b). Sustained vs. transient cognitive control: Evidence of a behavioral dissociation. Cognition, 114(3), 338–347. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.007.

  • Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII (pp. 331–355). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundy, J. G., Benarroch, M. F. F., Woodward, T. S., Metzak, P. D., Whitman, J. C., & Shedden, J. M. (2013). The bivalency effect in task switching: Event-related potentials. Human Brain Mapping, 34(5), 999–1012. doi:10.1002/hbm.21488.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56(4), 261–268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 638–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kan, I. P., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Drummey, A. B., Nutile, L., Krupa, L., & Novick, J. M. (2013). To adapt or not to adapt: The question of domain-general cognitive control. Cognition, 129(3), 637–651. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.09.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874. doi:10.1037/a0019842.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiman, T., Hassin, R. R., & Trope, Y. (2014). The control-freak mind: Stereotypical biases are eliminated following conflict-activated cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 498–503. doi:10.1037/a0033047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunde, W., Augst, S., & Kleinsorge, T. (2012). Adaptation to (non)valent task disturbance. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(4), 644–660. doi:10.3758/s13415-012-0116-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunde, W., & Stöcker, C. (2002). A Simon effect for stimulus-response duration. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 55(2), 581–592. doi:10.1080/02724980143000433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, D. S., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(2), 219–234.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loft, S., Kearney, R., & Remington, R. (2008). Is task interference in event-based prospective memory dependent on cue presentation? Memory & Cognition, 36(1), 139–148. doi:10.3758/MC.36.1.139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7(3), 166–174. doi:10.3758/BF03197535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, D. G., & Mitterer, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36(4), 684–700. doi:10.1037/h0080661.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163–203. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5), 450–452. doi:10.1038/nn1051.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., & Einstein, G. O. (2000). Strategic and automatic processes in prospective memory retrieval: A multiprocess framework. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14(7), S127–S144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, B., & Rey-Mermet, A. (2012a). Beyond feature binding: Interference from episodic context binding creates the bivalency effect in task-switching. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 386–394. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00386.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, B., & Rey-Mermet, A. (2012b). Beyond monitoring: After-effects of responding to prospective memory targets. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(4), 1644–1653. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2012.09.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, B., Rey-Mermet, A., & Rothen, N. (2015). Turning univalent stimuli bivalent: Synesthesia can cause cognitive conflict in task switching. Cognitive Neuroscience,. doi:10.1080/17588928.2015.1017449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, B., Rey-Mermet, A., Woodward, T. S., Müri, R., & Gutbrod, K. (2013). Episodic context binding in task switching: Evidence from amnesia. Neuropsychologia, 51(5), 886–892. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.01.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, B., Woodward, T. S., Rey-Mermet, A., & Graf, P. (2009). The bivalency effect in task switching: General and enduring. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(3), 201–210. doi:10.1037/a0014311.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, B., Zimmermann, T. D., & Perrig, W. J. (2006). Retrieval experience in prospective memory: Strategic monitoring and spontaneous retrieval. Memory, 14(7), 872–889. doi:10.1080/09658210600783774.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Metzak, P. D., Meier, B., Graf, P., & Woodward, T. S. (2013). More than a surprise: The bivalency effect in task switching. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(7), 833–842. doi:10.1080/20445911.2013.832196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notebaert, W., Houtman, F., Opstal, F. V., Gevers, W., Fias, W., & Verguts, T. (2009). Post-error slowing: An orienting account. Cognition, 111(2), 275–279. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2011). Conflict and error adaptation in the Simon task. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 212–216. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.05.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Núñez Castellar, E., Kühn, S., Fias, W., & Notebaert, W. (2010). Outcome expectancy and not accuracy determines posterror slowing: ERP support. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10(2), 270–278. doi:10.3758/CABN.10.2.270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Mermet, A., Koenig, T., & Meier, B. (2013). The bivalency effect represents an interference-triggered adjustment of cognitive control: An ERP study. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 13(3), 575–583. doi:10.3758/s13415-013-0160-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Mermet, A., & Meier, B. (2012). The bivalency effect: Adjustment of cognitive control without response set priming. Psychological Research, 76(1), 50–59. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0322-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Mermet, A., & Meier, B. (2013). An orienting response is not enough: Bivalency not infrequency causes the bivalency effect. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 9(3), 146–155. doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0142-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Mermet, A., & Meier, B. (2014). More conflict does not trigger more adjustment of cognitive control for subsequent events: A study of the bivalency effect. Acta Psychologica, 145, 111–117. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.11.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Mermet, A., & Meier, B. (2015). Age affects the adjustment of cognitive control after a conflict: Evidence from the bivalency effect. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 22(1), 72–94. doi:10.1080/13825585.2014.889070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207.

  • 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. doi:10.1037/a0024327.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. R. (2013a). Questioning conflict adaptation: Proportion congruent and Gratton effects reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(4), 615–630. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0373-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. R. (2013b). The Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP) model: Dissociating contingency and conflict adaptation in the item-specific proportion congruent paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 142(1), 119–126. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.11.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.06.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, J. R., & Small, A. M. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(5), 433–435. doi:10.1037/h0028034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. E. (2003). The cost of remembering to remember in event-based prospective memory: Investigating the capacity demands of delayed intention performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3), 347–361. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.347.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. E. (2010). What costs do reveal and moving beyond the cost debate: Reply to Einstein and McDaniel (2010). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 1089–1095. doi:10.1037/a0019183.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. E. (2011). Prospective memory: Beyond the cost debate. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 219(2), 75–76. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, M.-H., & Carlson, R. A. (2000). Effects of repetition and foreknowledge in task-set reconfiguration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1445–1460. doi:10.1037//0278-7393.26.6.1445.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spapé, M. M., Band, G. P. H., & Hommel, B. (2011). Compatibility-sequence effects in the Simon task reflect episodic retrieval but not conflict adaptation: Evidence from LRP and N2. Biological Psychology, 88(1), 116–123. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.07.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643–662. doi:10.1037/h0054651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 601–626. doi:10.1037/a0019791.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., Notebaert, W., & Vandierendonck, A. (2005). Effects of stimulus–stimulus compatibility and stimulus–response compatibility on response inhibition. Acta Psychologica, 120(3), 307–326. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.05.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115(2), 518–525. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.518.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2009). Adaptation by binding: a learning account of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(6), 252–257. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.02.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verguts, T., Notebaert, W., Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2011). Post-conflict slowing: Cognitive adaptation after conflict processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(1), 76–82. doi:10.3758/s13423-010-0016-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46(4), 361–413. doi:10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00520-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2004). Semantic generalization of stimulus-task bindings. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6), 1027–1033. doi:10.3758/BF03196732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.644.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • West, R., & Baylis, G. C. (1998). Effects of increased response dominance and contextual disintegration on the Stroop interference effect in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 13(2), 206–217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, T. S., Meier, B., Tipper, C., & Graf, P. (2003). Bivalency is costly: Bivalent stimuli elicit cautious responding. Experimental Psychology, 50(4), 233–238. doi:10.1026//1618-3169.50.4.233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, T. S., Metzak, P. D., Meier, B., & Holroyd, C. B. (2008). Anterior cingulate cortex signals the requirement to break inertia when switching tasks: a study of the bivalency effect. NeuroImage, 40(3), 1311–1318. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.12.049.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, G., & Allport, A. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs”. Psychological Research, 63(3–4), 212–233. doi:10.1007/s004269900003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Center for Cognition, Learning, and Memory, University of Bern, Switzerland. We thank Anne-Catherine Amstutz, Rahel Gfeller, Eva Gut, Tiffany Jacob, Melanie Künzli, Isabelle Marti, Seline Messmer, Sabrina Schmied, and Michèle Spichtig for testing the participants. We also thank Michel Druey for helpful comments on an earlier version.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Alodie Rey-Mermet

    Present address: Cognitive Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Binzmühlestr. 14/22, 8050, Zurich, Switzerland

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Psychology and Center for Cognition, Learning, and Memory, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Alodie Rey-Mermet & Beat Meier

Authors
  1. Alodie Rey-Mermet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beat Meier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alodie Rey-Mermet.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 Mean reaction times (in ms) and mean accuracy rates on digit identifications and colour/letter decisions for the trial sequences N + 1 until N + 4
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rey-Mermet, A., Meier, B. Post-conflict slowing after incongruent stimuli: from general to conflict-specific. Psychological Research 81, 611–628 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0767-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0767-0

Keywords

  • Prospective Memory
  • Congruency Effect
  • Incongruent Trial
  • Colour Word
  • Congruent Trial