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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Akçay, Ç., & Hazeltine, E. (2007). Conflict monitoring and feature overlap: Two sources of sequential modulations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 742–748.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., & Hoffmann, J. (2006). Evidence for taskspecific resolution of response conflict. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 800–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kurby, C. A., & Zacks, J. M. (2008). Segmentation in the perception and memory of events. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 72–79.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 523–553.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450–452.

    PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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, 1260–1272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2008). Cognitive control acts locally. Cognition, 106, 1071–1080.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zacks, J. M., & Swallow, K. M. (2007). Event segmentation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 80–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2001). Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 3–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michiel M. Spapé.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spapé, M.M., Hommel, B. He said, she said: Episodic retrieval induces conflict adaptation in an auditory Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 1117–1121 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.6.1117

Download citation

Keywords

  • Congruency Effect
  • Simon Effect
  • Incongruent Trial
  • Task Switch
  • Stroop Effect