Learning to be in control involves response-specific mechanisms
- 104 Downloads
Conflict adaptation refers to our ability to modulate our attention in line with changing situational demands, so we can engage in goal-directed behavior. While there is ample evidence demonstrating that such adaptation in conflict tasks can be captured using different response modalities, it remains unknown whether these effects rely on domain-general mechanisms applied to different response modalities, or are the result of more inherently response-specific processes. Here, we used an individual-differences approach to evaluate whether conflict adaptation in two highly similar tasks using different response modalities are related. Specifically, participants performed two versions of a Stroop task, one in which they responded via key presses and one in which they responded via mouse movements. In both tasks, we manipulated the item-specific proportion of (in)congruent trials (80% vs. 20% congruent). This allowed us to evaluate the item-specific proportion congruency (ISPC) effect, a hallmark indicator of conflict adaptation. ISPC effects were observed in both response modalities. However, we found no indications that individual differences in the ISPC effects of the two response modalities were related. This raises the question whether findings from studies on conflict adaptation measured by different modalities can reliably be compared. Furthermore, these results suggest that response modality plays a more integrative role in these adaptive processes, rather than being the mere output of a domain-general control mechanism. This is consistent with contingency learning accounts of the ISPC effect and associative learning models of cognitive control.
KeywordsCognitive control Stroop task Item-specific proportion congruency Response modalities Mouse tracking
MR was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Ghent University Special Research Fund (BOF 15/PDO/135).
Open Practice Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author [M.R.]. The experiment was not preregistered.
- Abrahamse, E. L., Duthoo, W., Notebaert, W., & Risko, E. F. (2013). Attention modulation by proportion congruency: The asymmetrical list shifting effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1552-1562.Google Scholar
- Braem, S., Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2011). Conflict adaptation by means of associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1662-1666.Google Scholar
- Chen, T., Becker, B., Camilleri, J., Wang, L., Yu, S., Eickhoff, S. B., & Feng, C. (2018). A domain-general brain network underlying emotional and cognitive interference processing: Evidence from coordinate-based and functional connectivity meta-analyses. Brain Structure and Function, 223, 3813-3840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- IBM Corp (2015). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 23.0) [Computer software].Google Scholar
- Grandjean, J., D’Ostilio, K., Fias, W., Phillips, C., Balteau, E., Degueldre, C., … Collette, F. (2013). Exploration of the mechanisms underlying the ISPC effect: Evidence from behavioral and neuroimaging data. Neuropsychologia, 51, 1040-1049.Google Scholar
- Incera, S., Markis, T. A., & McLennan, C. T. (2013). Mouse-tracking reveals when the Stroop effect happens. The Ohio Psychologist, 60, 33-34.Google Scholar
- JASP Team (2017). JASP (Version 0.8.1) [Computer software].Google Scholar
- Whitehead, P. S., Brewer, G. A., & Blais, C. (2019). Are cognitive control processes reliable? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45, 765-778.Google Scholar