바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.28 No.1

Citation Share

Changes of Proactive Cognitive Control According to Inter-Stimulus Intervals

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.45-66
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.1.003


& (2016). Changes of Proactive Cognitive Control According to Inter-Stimulus Intervals. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 28(1), 45-66, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.1.003

Abstract

In selective attention tasks such as the Stroop or flanker tasks, performance on the current trial is modulated by trial sequence. This is referred to as the conflict adaptation (CA) effect, which is used for a measurement of cognitive control. Various theoretical accounts have been proposed to explain the CA effect in a top-down or bottom-up manner. In a top-down attentional modulation view, the conflict monitoring theory suggests reactive control whereas a expectation-based account proposes proactive control. These have different assumption in the time-course of the CA effect. In the present study, we used a relatively difficult version of the Stroop task to investigate whether the CA effect is influenced by temporal operation in the light of proactive control. In the Experiment 1 and 2, diverse inter-stimulus intervals were randomly presented in the tasks. The result showed that the CA effect could occur proactively when the processing time was sufficient. In the Experiment 3, we manipulated the inter-stimulus intervals in the block design to facilitate participants' anticipation of the stimulus presentation time. The results demonstrated that proactive control could be enhanced due to the expectation effect. Our findings suggest that the CA effect could occur through proactive control according to the nature of tasks. In addition, proactive control appears to operate more efficiently when processing time is enough and prediction of the stimulus onset is easy.

keywords
cognitive control, proactive control, conflict adaptation, inter-stimulus interval, 인지적 통제, 능동적 통제, 갈등적응, 자극 간 간격

Reference

1.

Blais, C., & Verguts, T. (2012). Increasing set size breaks down sequential congruency: Evidence for an associative locus of cognitive control. Acta Psychologica, 141, 133-139.

2.

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

3.

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

4.

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.

5.

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.

6.

Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 106-113.

7.

Clementz, B. A., Barber, S. K., & Dzau, J. R. (2002). Knowledge of stimulus repetition affects the magnitude and spatial distribution of low-frequency event-related brain potentials. Audiology and Neuro-Otology, 7, 303-314.

8.

De Houwer, J. A. N. (2003). On the role of stimulus-response and stimulus-stimulus compatibility in the Stroop effect. Memory & Cognition, 31, 353-359.

9.

Duthoo, W., Abrahamse, E. L., Braem, S., & Notebaert, W. (2014). Going, going, gone? Proactive control prevents the congruency sequence effect from rapid decay. Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung, 78, 483-493.

10.

Duthoo, W., Wuhr, P., & Notebaert, W. (2013). The hot-hand fallacy in cognitive control: Repetition expectancy modulates the congruency sequence effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 798-805.

11.

Egner, T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 380-390.

12.

Egner, T., Ely, S., & Grinband, J. (2010). Going, going, gone: characterizing the time-course of congruency sequence effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 1. 1-8.

13.

Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). The neural correlates and functional integration of cognitive control in a Stroop task. Neuroimage, 24, 539-547.

14.

Galer, S., Schmitz, R., Leproult, R., De Tiege, X., Van Bogaert, P., & Peigneux, P. (2014). Response-Stimulus Interval Duration Modulates Interference Effects in the Stroop Task. Psychologica Belgica, 54, 97-110.

15.

Gholson, B., & Hohle, R. H. (1968). Choice reaction times to hues printed in conflicting hue names and nonsense words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 413-418.

16.

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.

17.

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

18.

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, 1023-1026.

19.

Kim, C., Chung, C., & Kim, J. (2010). Multiple cognitive control mechanisms associated with the nature of conflict. Neuroscience Letters, 476, 156-160.

20.

Kim, C., Johnson, N. F., & Gold, B. T. (2014). Conflict adaptation in prefrontal cortex: Now you see it, now you don't. Cortex, 50, 76-85.

21.

Kim, C., Kroger, J. K., & Kim, J. (2011). A Functional Dissociation of Conflict Processing Within Anterior Cingulate Cortex. Human Brain Mapping, 32, 304-312.

22.

Larson, M. J., Kaufman, D. A. S., & Perlstein, W. M. (2009). Neural time course of conflict adaptation effects on the Stroop task. Neuropsychologia, 47, 663-670.

23.

Locke, H. S., & Braver, T. S. (2008). Motivational influences on cognitive control: Behavior, brain activation, and individual differences. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 99-112.

24.

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.

25.

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

26.

McClain, L. (1983). Effects of response type and set size on Stroop color-word performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 56, 735-743.

27.

Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167-202.

28.

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.

29.

Notebaert, W., Gevers, W., Verbruggen, F., & Liefooghe, B. (2006). Top-down and bottom- up sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 112-117.

30.

Notebaert, W., Soetens, E., & Melis, A. (2001). Sequential analysis of a Simon task - evidence for an attention-shift account. Psychological Research, 65, 170-184.

31.

Ray, C. (1974). The manipulation of color response times in a color-word interference task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 101-104.

32.

Shin, G., & Kim, C. (2015). Neural correlates of cognitive style and flexible cognitive control. Neuroimage, 113, 78-85.

33.

Speer, N. K., Jacoby, L. L., & Braver, T. S. (2003). Strategy-dependent changes in memory: Effects on behavior and brain activity. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 155-167.

34.

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

35.

Sturmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schroter, H., & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology- Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345- 1363.

36.

van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Wylie, S. A. (2012). Once bitten, twice shy: on the transient nature of congruency sequence effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. 264.

37.

van Veen, V., & Carter, C. S. (2005). Separating semantic conflict and response conflict in the Stroop task: a functional MRI study. NeuroImage, 27, 497-504.

38.

Wendt, M., & Kiesel, A. (2011). Conflict adaptation in time: Foreperiods as contextual cues for attentional adjustment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 910-916.

39.

Williams, E. (1977). The effects of amount of information in the Stroop color word test. Perception & Psychophysics, 22, 463-470.

40.

Wodka, E. L., Simmonds, D. J., Mahone, E. M., & Mostofsky, S. H. (2009). Moderate variability in stimulus presentation improves motor response control. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31, 483-488.

41.

Wuhr, P., & Ansorge, U. (2005). Exploring trial-by-trial modulations of the Simon effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section a-Human Experimental Psychology, 58, 705-731.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy