Congruency sequence effects are driven by previous-trial congruency, not previous-trial response conflict.
Congruency effects in distracter interference tasks are often smaller after incongruent trials than after congruent trials. However, the sources of such congruency sequence effects (CSEs) are controversial. The conflict monitoring model of cognitive control links CSEs to the detection and resolution...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2013-09-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Psychology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00587/full |
| _version_ | 1818302911806963712 |
|---|---|
| author | Daniel eWeissman Joshua eCarp |
| author_facet | Daniel eWeissman Joshua eCarp |
| author_sort | Daniel eWeissman |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Congruency effects in distracter interference tasks are often smaller after incongruent trials than after congruent trials. However, the sources of such congruency sequence effects (CSEs) are controversial. The conflict monitoring model of cognitive control links CSEs to the detection and resolution of response conflict. In contrast, competing theories attribute CSEs to attentional or affective processes that vary with previous-trial congruency (incongruent vs. congruent). The present study sought to distinguish between conflict and non-conflict accounts of CSEs. To this end, we determined whether CSEs are driven by previous-trial reaction time (RT)--a putative measure of response conflict--or by previous-trial congruency. In two experiments using a face-word Stroop task (n=49), we found that current-trial congruency effects did not vary with previous-trial RT independent of previous-trial congruency. In contrast, current-trial congruency effects were influenced by previous-trial congruency independent of previous-trial RT. These findings appear more consistent with theories that attribute CSEs to non-conflict processes that vary with previous-trial congruency than with theories that link CSEs to previous-trial response conflict. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T05:46:26Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6af63a927b704072829ba73f88fb3771 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1664-1078 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T05:46:26Z |
| publishDate | 2013-09-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Psychology |
| spelling | doaj.art-6af63a927b704072829ba73f88fb37712022-12-21T23:57:40ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782013-09-01410.3389/fpsyg.2013.0058756383Congruency sequence effects are driven by previous-trial congruency, not previous-trial response conflict.Daniel eWeissman0Joshua eCarp1University of MichiganUniversity of MichiganCongruency effects in distracter interference tasks are often smaller after incongruent trials than after congruent trials. However, the sources of such congruency sequence effects (CSEs) are controversial. The conflict monitoring model of cognitive control links CSEs to the detection and resolution of response conflict. In contrast, competing theories attribute CSEs to attentional or affective processes that vary with previous-trial congruency (incongruent vs. congruent). The present study sought to distinguish between conflict and non-conflict accounts of CSEs. To this end, we determined whether CSEs are driven by previous-trial reaction time (RT)--a putative measure of response conflict--or by previous-trial congruency. In two experiments using a face-word Stroop task (n=49), we found that current-trial congruency effects did not vary with previous-trial RT independent of previous-trial congruency. In contrast, current-trial congruency effects were influenced by previous-trial congruency independent of previous-trial RT. These findings appear more consistent with theories that attribute CSEs to non-conflict processes that vary with previous-trial congruency than with theories that link CSEs to previous-trial response conflict.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00587/fullReaction Timeconflict monitoringresponse conflictStroopcongruency sequence effectssequential modulations |
| spellingShingle | Daniel eWeissman Joshua eCarp Congruency sequence effects are driven by previous-trial congruency, not previous-trial response conflict. Frontiers in Psychology Reaction Time conflict monitoring response conflict Stroop congruency sequence effects sequential modulations |
| title | Congruency sequence effects are driven by previous-trial congruency, not previous-trial response conflict. |
| title_full | Congruency sequence effects are driven by previous-trial congruency, not previous-trial response conflict. |
| title_fullStr | Congruency sequence effects are driven by previous-trial congruency, not previous-trial response conflict. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Congruency sequence effects are driven by previous-trial congruency, not previous-trial response conflict. |
| title_short | Congruency sequence effects are driven by previous-trial congruency, not previous-trial response conflict. |
| title_sort | congruency sequence effects are driven by previous trial congruency not previous trial response conflict |
| topic | Reaction Time conflict monitoring response conflict Stroop congruency sequence effects sequential modulations |
| url | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00587/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT danieleweissman congruencysequenceeffectsaredrivenbyprevioustrialcongruencynotprevioustrialresponseconflict AT joshuaecarp congruencysequenceeffectsaredrivenbyprevioustrialcongruencynotprevioustrialresponseconflict |