바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.28 No.1

Citation Share

Intratrial and Intertrial Conflict Adaptation in the Stroop Comparison Task

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2016, v.28 no.1, pp.157-175
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.1.008


& (2016). Intratrial and Intertrial Conflict Adaptation in the Stroop Comparison Task. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 28(1), 157-175, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.1.008

Abstract

Conflict adaptation refers to a phenomenon in which the congruency effect decreases in an incompatible trial followed by the same incongruent trial in conflict tasks(Gratton & Donchin, 1992). This study measured whether conflict adaptation occurs upon the process of two conflicting stimuli within a trial, and whether a certain pattern of conflicts within a trial affects the performance in the next trial. The participants performed a Stroop comparison task, whrere they compared the meaning of one of the two presented Stroop words with the color of the other word. In Experiment 1, two Stroop words with distinctive task-relevant information were presented in sequence. The congruency effects of the second stimulus were analyzed as contingent on congruency of the previous stimuli. The results showed that the conflict adaptation effects which the second Stroop stimuli yielded reduced the congruency effect when the first Stroop word was incongruent. In Experiment 2, conflict adaptation between trials was observed when two Stroop words were shown simultaneously. The pattern of conflicts within a trial was one of four conditions determined by the relation with each stimulus’ congruency; congruent-congruent, congruent- incongruent, incongruent-congruent, and incongruent-incongruent. The results showed that the RT on current trials decreased when the pattern of conflicts in the current trial was identical to the previous trial. The complex pattern of conflicts generated by the previous trial affected the performance for the next trial. In conclusion, this study newly found the conflict adaptation within a single trial, which was sequentially processed and responded to two stimuli, and the effects of the complex pattern of the conflicts within a trial on the conflict adaptation in the following trial.

keywords
갈등순응, 스트룹, 인지 통제, conflict adaptation, Stroop, cognitive control

Reference

1.

김민식, 이도준, 민수정, 김가민 (2013). 작업기억 부하에 의한 방추상얼굴영역의 방해자극 관련 정보처리의 감소. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 25(1), 1-24.

2.

김상아, 조양석 (2013). 과제무관련 정보의 처리와 반응모드 사이의 처리억제를 통한 인지통제의 과정. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 25, 88-91.

3.

박영은, 조양석 (2015). 스트룹 과제에서 갑작스럽게 제시된 색단어의 주의 획득 효과. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 27(2), 77- 105.

4.

박태진, 박선희 (2011). 수반자극과제에서 정서가 초점주의에 미치는 영향. 인지과학, 22(4), 385-404.

5.

Braem, S., Abrahamse, E. L., Duthoo, W., & Notebaert, W. (2014). What determines the specificity of conflict adaptation? A review, critical analysis, and proposed synthesis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1134), 1-13.

6.

Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.

7.

Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624-652.

8.

Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: An update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(12), 539-546.

9.

Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122(3), 371-396.

10.

Duthoo, W., Abrahamse, E. L., Braem, S., Boehler, C. N., & Notebaert, W. (2014). The heterogeneous world of congruency sequence effects: An update. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1001), 1-9.

11.

Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(10), 374-380.

12.

Egner, T., Delano, M., & Hirsch, J. (2007). Separate conflict-specific cognitive control mechanisms in the human brain. Neuroimage, 35(2), 940-948.

13.

Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nature Neuroscience, 8(12), 1784-1790.

14.

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.

15.

Fernandez-Duque, D., & Knight, M. (2008). Cognitive control: Dynamic, sustained, and voluntary influences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(2), 340-355.

16.

Fischer, R., Plessow, F., Kunde, W., & Kiesel, A. (2010). Trial-to-trial modulations of the Simon effect in conditions of attentional limitations: Evidence from dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(6), 1576-1594.

17.

Funes, M. J., Lupiáñez, J., & Humphreys, G. (2010). Analyzing the generality of conflict adaptation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(1), 147-161.

18.

Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480- 506.

19.

Goldfarb, L., & Henik, A. (2006). New data analysis of the Stroop matching task calls for a reevaluation of theory. Psychological Science, 17(2), 96-100.

20.

Han, S. W., & Kim, M. S. (2009). Do the contents of working memory capture attention? Yes, but cognitive control matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(5), 1292.

21.

Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68(1), 1-17.

22.

Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W., Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303(5660), 1023-1026.

23.

Kim, C., Chung, C., & Kim, J. (2013). Task- dependent response conflict monitoring and cognitive control in anterior cingulate and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices. Brain Research, 1537, 216-223.

24.

Kim, S. Y., Kim, M. S., & Chun, M. M. (2005). Concurrent working memory load can reduce distraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(45), 16524-16529.

25.

Kornblum, S. (1994). The way irrelevant dimensions are processed depends on what they overlap with: The case of Stroop-and Simon-like stimuli. Psychological Research, 56(3), 130-135.

26.

Lee, J., & Cho, Y. S. (2013). Congruency sequence effect in cross-task context: Evidence for dimension-specific modulation. Acta Psychologica, 144(3), 617-627.

27.

Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5), 450-452.

28.

Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2008). Cognitive control acts locally. Cognition, 106(2), 1071- 1080.

29.

Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 174-176.

30.

Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662.

31.

Tang, D., Hu, L., Li, H., Zhang, Q., & Chen, A. (2013). The neural dynamics of conflict adaptation within a look-to-do transition. PloS One, 8(2), e57912.

32.

Weissman, D. H., Jiang, J., & Egner, T. (2014). Determinants of congruency sequence effects without learning and memory confounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(5), 2022-2037.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy