Crump and Milliken (2009) reported a context-specific proportion congruence (CSPC) effect for inducer and diagnostic sets, the strongest evidence to date of context-specific control. Attempts to replicate/reproduce this evidence have failed, including Experiment 1. Using a picture-word Stroop task, we tackled the question of how to interpret such failures by testing the consistency hypothesis (Hutcheon & Spieler, 2017) and two novel hypotheses inspired by our theorizing about learning opportunities in the CSPC paradigm. Experiment 2 found a CSPC effect when there was no diagnostic set, supporting the consistency hypothesis. Experiment 3 produced novel evidence for item-PC learning in a CSPC paradigm. In contrast, Experiment 4 did not produce strong evidence for location-item conjunctive learning. Our findings suggest failures to replicate/reproduce the CSPC effect do not necessarily indicate a Type I error or instability but instead may indicate episodic representations were organized based on item and not location. This item-PC learning hypothesis uniquely predicted Experiment 3 findings and accommodates findings of all but one prior attempt to replicate/reproduce the CSPC effect for inducer and diagnostic sets, including Experiment 1. Predicting whether future attempts are successful will require deeper understanding of the factors that promote learning of item-PC versus location-PC associations.
for their helpful feedback on this project, and Jackson Colvett for his thoughtful comments on an earlier draft. We are also grateful to reviewers Keith Hutchison, Serje Robidoux, and James Schmidt for their insight.
Existing approaches in the literature on cognitive control in conflict tasks almost exclusively target the outcome of control (by comparing mean congruency effects) and not the processes that shape control. These approaches are limited in addressing a current theoretical issue-what contribution does learning make to adjustments in cognitive control? In the present study, we evaluated an alternative approach by reanalyzing existing data sets using generalized linear mixed models that enabled us to examine triallevel changes in control within abbreviated lists that varied in theoretically significant ways (e.g., probability of conflict; presence vs. absence of a precue). For the first time, this allowed us to characterize (a) the trial-by-trial signature of experience-based processes that support control as a list unfolds under various conditions and (b) how explicit precues conveying the expected probability of conflict within a list influence control learning. This approach uncovered novel theoretical insights: First, slopes representing control learning varied depending on whether a cue was available or not suggesting that explicit expectations about conflict affected whether and the rate at which control learning occurred; and second, this pattern was modulated by task demands and incentives. Additionally, analyses revealed a cue-induced heightening of control in high conflict likelihood lists that mean level analyses had failed to capture. The present study showed how control is shaped by the adaptive weighting of experience and expectations on a trial-by-trial basis and demonstrated the utility of a novel method for revealing the contributions of learning to control, and modulation of learning via precues.
Traditionally cognitive control is described as slow-acting, effortful, and strategic. Against this backdrop, the notion of "automatic control" is an oxymoron. However, recent findings indicate control also operates quickly with adjustments occurring outside awareness, leaving open the possibility that control could be automatic under certain conditions. Harnessing one such finding, the item-specific proportion congruent (ISPC) effect (i.e., reduction in congruency effect for mostly incongruent compared with mostly congruent items), we systematically investigated the automaticity of reactive item-specific control by examining its efficiency under a concurrent load. In four experiments using a picture-word Stroop task, participants first performed a block of trials in which an ISPC manipulation was embedded to acquire the item-control associations. In later blocks, we manipulated working memory load withinsubjects (verbal in Experiment 1, visuospatial in Experiment 2, and n-back updating in Experiments 3 and 4) and compared the ISPC effect between low-and high-load conditions. The results of all four experiments showed that the ISPC effect was robust regardless of working memory load. In Experiment 4, we additionally included diagnostic items to assess whether transfer of item-specific control settings was also automatic. The ISPC transfer effect was abolished under high working memory load. Collectively, the findings suggest that reactive item-specific control is triggered and executed in an automatic manner (regardless of the available attentional resources), but only for items that directly support learning of the item-control associations that underlie item-specific control. We propose several hypotheses to account for these findings and discuss theoretical implications for control. Public Significance StatementIt is commonly believed that controlling one's attention, for example, to minimize the influence of distractors, is a goal-directed mental process that is deliberate and taxing. However, growing evidence indicates attention can be controlled reactively, such that it is triggered by environmental cues and executed in a seemingly automatic fashion. In the present study, we systematically investigated the automaticity of cognitive control, more specifically, whether a form of reactive control called item-specific control can continue to operate efficiently even in the presence of a concurrent task that consumes working memory resources. A robust and consistent pattern was found showing that item-specific control was not detrimentally affected by a high working memory load compared with a low load. However, we also found a boundary condition for the automaticity of reactive item-specific control. Our findings extend our theoretical understanding of reactive control and suggest it is possible to achieve high levels of cognitive control even under conditions in which attention is directed to a secondary, demanding task.
Prior research has shown that various cues are exploited to reactively adjust attention and such adjustments depend on learning associations between cues and proportion congruence. This raises the intriguing question of what will be learned when more than one cue is available, a question that has implications for understanding which cue(s) will dominate in guiding reactive adjustments. Using a picture-word Stroop task, Bugg, Suh, Colvett, and Lehmann (2020) provided initial evidence that item learning dominated over location learning in a location-specific proportion congruence (LSPC) paradigm, a pattern that may explain the difficulty researchers have faced in replicating and reproducing the LSPC effect. One goal was to reproduce this pattern using a non-overlapping two-item sets design that more closely matched prior studies, and another goal was to examine generalizability of the pattern to two other tasks. Using a prime-probe, color-word Stroop task (Experiment 1) and a flanker task (Experiment 2), we again found clear dominance of item learning. In Experiment 3, we attempted to disrupt item learning and promote location learning by using a counting procedure that directed participants’ attention to location. Once again, we found the same pattern of item dominance. Additionally, in none of the experiments did we find evidence for conjunctive (location-item) learning. Collectively, the findings suggest item learning is neither design- or task-specific; rather, it is robust, reliable, and not easily disrupted. Discussion centers on factors dictating dominance of item- over location-based adjustments and implications for the broader literature on LSPC effects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.