Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 1117–1121 | Cite as

He said, she said: Episodic retrieval induces conflict adaptation in an auditory Stroop task

Brief Reports
  • 496 Downloads

Abstract

People respond more slowly if an irrelevant feature of a target stimulus is incompatible with the relevant feature or the correct response. Such compatibility effects are often reduced in trials following an incompatible trial, which has been taken to reflect increased cognitive control. This pattern holds only if two trials share some similarities, however, suggesting that it may be modulated by the episodic context. To look into this possibility, we had participants respond to high- or low-pitched tones by saying “high” or “low,” respectively, and ignore the simultaneously presented auditory word “high” or “low.” As expected, performance was impaired if the heard word was incompatible with the required response, and this Stroop-like effect was reduced after incompatible trials. This sequential modulation was observed, however, only if the voice in the two successive trials was the same, whereas no modulation was obtained when the speaker changed. The results suggest that sequential modulations are due to the automatic retrieval of episodic event representations that integrate stimuli, actions, and situational and task-specific control information, so that later reactivation of some elements of a given representation tends to retrieve the other elements as well.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akçay, Ç., & Hazeltine, E. (2007). Conflict monitoring and feature overlap: Two sources of sequential modulations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 742–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blais, C., Robidoux, S., Risko, E. F., & Besner, D. (2007). Item-specificadaptation and the conflict-monitoring hypothesis: A computational model. Psychological Review, 114, 1076–1086.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Botvinick, M. M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature, 402, 179–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Brass, M., Derrfuss, J., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2005). The inhibition of imitative response tendencies: A functional double dissociation of imitative and overlearned responses. Neuropsychologia, 43, 89–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a non-search task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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, 480–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2004). A feature-integrationaccount of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68, 1–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W., III, Cho, R. Y., Stenger, A. V., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303, 1023–1026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., & Hoffmann, J. (2006). Evidence for taskspecific resolution of response conflict. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 800–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kurby, C. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2008). Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 72–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 523–553.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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, 166–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450–452.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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 & Cognition, 34, 1260–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2008). Cognitive control acts locally. Cognition, 106, 1071–1080.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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, 300–304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schröter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 1345–1363.Google Scholar
  23. Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Berger, J. (1992). Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words. Memory & Cognition, 20, 727–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van Berkum, J. J. A., van den Brink, D., Tesink, C. M. J. Y., Kos, M., & Hagoort, P. (2008). The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 580–591.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in taskshift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 361–413.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 & Performance, 32, 644–667.Google Scholar
  27. Wühr, P. (2005). Evidence for gating of direct response activation in the Simon task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 282–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zacks, J. M., & Swallow, K. M. (2007). Event segmentation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 80–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 3–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Psychological Research and Leiden Institute for Brain and CognitionLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations