Abstract
Recent research demonstrated that control states learned via experience in inducer locations were retrieved in novel, unbiased (i.e., diagnostic) locations positioned nearby. Such transfer has been observed even in the presence of a visual boundary (a line) separating inducer and diagnostic locations. One aim of the present study was to assess whether a meaningful boundary might disrupt retrieval of control states in diagnostic locations. Supporting this possibility, in Experiment 1 learned control states did not transfer from inducer locations superimposed on a university’s quad to diagnostic locations superimposed on buildings outside the quad. Similarly, in Experiment 2 transfer was not observed for diagnostic locations positioned on a track outside of the field where inducer locations were positioned; however, transfer was also not observed for diagnostic locations on the field (inside the boundary). The latter finding helped motivate Experiments 3a and 3b, which tackled the second aim by examining whether a meaningful boundary might attenuate learning of control states for inducer locations within the boundary. Consistent with this hypothesis, a CSPC effect was observed only when a meaningful boundary was not present. Taken together, the findings provide evidence that meaningful boundaries influence how conflict experiences are organized during a task thereby impacting learning and transfer of context-specific control states.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A similar assumption (that the boundary needs to be meaningful) could be inferred from a prior study that looked at transfer beyond a different type of reference frame using a prime-probe task. Kunde et al. (2003) found that compatibility effects (reflecting compatibility of responses corresponding to a prime number and a to-be-judged probe number) were found for a prime-only set (e.g., 2, 3, 7, and 8) that never appeared as targets when the target set included a larger range (e.g., 1, 4, 6, and 9) that “encompassed” numbers within the prime-only set. However, and most importantly for present purposes, when the target set (e.g., 3, 4, 6, and 7) had a smaller range such that the numbers from the prime-only set fell outside of that range (e.g., 1, 2, 8, and 9), compatibility effects were not observed. That is, transfer did not extend beyond the reference frame. The reference frame was arguably meaningful in that participants’ knowledge of a mental number line, for example, distinguished numbers in and outside the frame.
As a reviewer pointed out, the reduction in the CSPC effect in Experiment 3b was driven primarily by faster RTs to congruent trials in both MC and MI locations in Experiment 3a compared to 3b. The faster RT for congruent trials in the MC location in 3a compared to 3b is consistent with the interpretation that participants in 3a learned a relaxed control state for the MC location resulting in greater processing of the flanker arrows (and thus greater facilitation in the form of faster RT) compared to 3b (where overall an intermediate, 50% congruent control state was learned). It is surprising that the same speed up was observed for congruent trials in the MI location in Experiment 3a compared to 3b (again indicating greater facilitation from the flankers in 3a) considering that a more focused control state was presumably retrieved in 3a than 3b (where, again, an intermediate control state was learned) resulting in greater filtering of the flankers in 3a. However, it is important to note that theorizing in the CSPC literature has tended to focus on differences in the overall CSPC effect (reflecting differences in compatibility effects between locations) and not differences in select trial types, unlike for example the item-specific proportion congruence (ISPC) literature which has observed fairly consistent patterns of ISPC effects and theorizing exists that anticipates specific patterns of ISPC effects based on differences in select trial types (see, e.g., Bugg & Dey, 2018; Bugg et al., 2011a, 2011b; Suh & Bugg, 2021). Here, the difference in the overall CSPC effect is in the direction consistent with the interpretation that CSPC effects are weaker when a meaningful boundary is present (i.e., in Exp 3b compared to 3a).
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
References
Braem, S., Bugg, J. M., Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J. C., Weissman, D. H., Notebaert, W., & Egner, T. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.002
Bugg, J. M. (2015). The relative attractiveness of distractors and targets affects the coming and going of item-specific control: Evidence from flanker tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(2), 373–389. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0752-x
Bugg, J. M., & Crump, M. J. C. (2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: A review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology: Cognition, 3, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00367
Bugg, J. M., & Dey, A. (2018). When stimulus-driven control settings compete: On the dominance of categories as cues for control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(12), 1905. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000580
Bugg, J. M., & Gonthier, C. (2020). List-level control in the flanker task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820912477
Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Chanani, S. (2011a). Why it is too early to lose control in accounts of item-specific proportion congruency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(3), 844. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019957
Bugg, J. M., McDaniel, M. A., Scullin, M. K., & Braver, T. S. (2011b). Revealing list-level control in the Stroop task by uncovering its benefits and a cost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(5), 1595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024670
Bugg, J.M., Suh., J., Colvett., J.S., Lehmann., S.G. (2020). What can be learned in a context-specific proportion congruence paradigm? Implications for reproducibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000801(in press).
Cañadas, E., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Milliken, B., & Lupiáñez, J. (2013). Social categories as a context for the allocation of attentional control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(3), 934. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029794
Corballis, P. M., & Gratton, G. (2003). Independent control of processing strategies for different locations in the visual field. Biological Psychology, 64(1–2), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(03)00109-1
Crump, M. J. C., Brosowsky, N. P., & Milliken, B. (2017). Reproducing the location-based context-specific proportion congruent effect for frequency unbiased items: A reply to Hutcheon and Spieler (2016). The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1792–1807. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1206130
Crump, M. J., Gong, Z., & Milliken, B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 316–321. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193850
Crump, M. J. C., & Milliken, B. (2009). The flexibility of context-specific control: Evidence for context-driven generalization of item-specific control. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1523–1532. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902752096
Diede, N. T., & Bugg, J. M. (2019). Boundary conditions for the influence of spatial proximity on context-specific attentional settings. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81, 1386–1404. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01686-8
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000673
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. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267
Google, Maxar Technologies, U.S. Geological Survey, USDA Farm Service Agency. (2021). [Google Maps aerial image of Washington University Campus], Map Data ©2021, Imagery ©2021. https://www.google.com/maps/@38.6486422,-90.3106649,399a,35y,276.49h/data=!3m1!1e3. Accessed 1 Jan 2021.
Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5(1–2), 183–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/713756773
Hutcheon, T. G., & Spieler, D. H. (2017). Limits on the generalizability of context-driven control. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1292–1304. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1182193
Jiang, J., Brashier, N. M., & Egner, T. (2015). Memory meets control in hippocampal and striatal binding of stimuli, responses, and attentional control states. Journal of Neuroscience, 35(44), 14885–14895. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2957-15.2015
Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffman, J. (2003). Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition. Cognition, 88, 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00023-4
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492
Pickel, L., Pratt, J., & Weidler, B. J. (2019). The transfer of location-based control requires location-based conflict. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(8), 2788–2797. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01785-6
Schmidt, J. R., & Lemercier, C. (2019). Context-specific proportion congruent effects: Compound-cue contingency learning in disguise. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(5), 1119–1130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818787155
Suh, J. & Bugg, J.M. (2021). On the automaticity of reactive item-specific control as evidenced by its efficiency under load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.
van Doorn, J., van den Bergh, D., Böhm, U., Dablander, F., Derks, K., Draws, T., Etz, A., Evans, N. J., Gronau, Q. F., Haaf, J. M., Hinne, M., Kucharský, Š, Ly, A., Marsman, M., Matzke, D., Gupta, A. R. K. N., Sarafoglou, A., Stefan, A., Voelkel, J. G., & Wagenmakers, E. J. (2020). The JASP guidelines for conducting and reporting a Bayesian analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01798-5
Wagenmakers, E. J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & Van Der Maas, H. L. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 426–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022790
Weidler, B. J., & Bugg, J. M. (2016). Transfer of location-specific control to untrained locations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 2202–2217. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1111396
Weidler, B. J., Dey, A., & Bugg, J. M. (2020). Attentional control transfers beyond the reference frame. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 84, 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0984-9
Wendt, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., & Jacobsen, T. (2012). Conflict-induced perceptual filtering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 675. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025902
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Natasha Frontera, Eva Jeliazkova, Lindsay Nobles, and Janelli Rodriguez for their time and effort on this project and their assistance with data collection. Thanks to the Cognitive Control and Aging lab for their helpful feedback on the project, and special thanks to Blaire Weidler for her insights. Data are available on OSF at https://osf.io/y7xa6/files/.
Funding
Julie M. Bugg was supported by NIH AG057937.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Jackson S. Colvett declares that he has no conflict of interest. Julie M. Bugg declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
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.
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
Colvett, J.S., Bugg, J.M. Meaningful boundaries create boundary conditions for control. Psychological Research 86, 1615–1635 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01580-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01580-9