Conflict-triggered top-down control: Default mode, last resort, or no such thing?

Abstract

The conflict monitoring account posits that globally high levels of conflict trigger engagement of top-down control; however, recent findings point to the mercurial nature of top-down control in high conflict contexts. The current study examined the potential moderating effect of associative learning on conflict-triggered top-down control engagement by testing the Associations as Antagonists to Top-Down Control (AATC) hypothesis. In 4 experiments, list-wide proportion congruence was manipulated, and conflict-triggered top-down control engagement was examined by comparing interference for 50% congruent items across mostly congruent (low conflict) and mostly incongruent (high conflict) lists. Despite the fact that global levels of conflict were varied identically across experiments, evidence of conflict-triggered top-down control engagement was selective to those experiments in which responses could not be predicted on the majority of trials via simple associative learning, consistent with the AATC hypothesis. In a fifth experiment, older adults showed no evidence of top-down control engagement under conditions in which young adults did, a finding that refined the interpretation of the patterns observed in the prior experiments. Collectively, these findings suggest that top-down control engagement in high conflict contexts is neither the default mode nor an unused (or non-existent) strategy. Top-down control is best characterized as a last resort that is engaged when reliance on one’s environment, and in particular associative responding, is unproductive for achieving task goals.

Congruency precues moderate item-specific proportion congruency effects

“…Other than those reported, no other main effects or interactions were significant in this or the subsequent experiment. Following prior studies that had employed the design used here (though without the precue manipulation; Bugg, 2014;cf. Blais & Bunge, 2010;Bugg et al, 2008), we conducted separate ANOVAs for the PC75/PC25 items and the PC50 items.…”

“…Subsequent research has demonstrated, however, that this conclusion may be specific to list-based PC designs that use small sets (comprising two words and colors) of stimuli to establish the overall PC of the list (i.e., via 75 %-and 25 %-congruent items; Bugg, 2014;Bugg & Chanani, 2011;cf. Bugg, McDaniel, Scullin, & Braver, 2011;Hutchison, 2011).…”

“…Bugg, McDaniel, Scullin, & Braver, 2011;Hutchison, 2011). Most notably, Bugg (2014) demonstrated the conditions under which one can expect the engagement of proactive (top-down) control when list-based PC is manipulated (i.e., when participants cannot minimize interference on most trials via simple associative learning, as was possible in the studies of Bugg et al, 2008, andBunge, 2010). Still, under these conditions, there was always an accompanying ISPC effect (when comparing the 75 %-congruent and 25 %-congruent items; e.g., Bugg, 2014, Exps.…”

Time-out for conflict monitoring theory: Preventing rhythmic biases eliminates the list-level proportion congruent effect.

“…In many reports, the PC effect did not transfer to diagnostic items (e.g., Blais & Bunge, 2010;Bugg, Jacoby, & Toth, 2008). However, in some conditions a LLPC effect is observed (e.g., Bugg, 2014;Bugg, McDaniel, Scullin, & Braver, 2011;Hutchison, 2011;Wühr, Duthoo, & Notebaert, 2015).…”

“…Specifically, distracting words accurately predict the correct response on congruent trials in the mostly congruent condition, and (in many task variants) accurately predict a specific incongruent response in the mostly incongruent condition (e.g., if "red" is presented most often in yellow). Considerable debate has focussed on whether contingency learning provides a sufficient account of the PC effect, or whether conflict adaptation must also be assumed (e.g., Abrahamse, Duthoo, Notebaert, & Risko, 2013;Atalay & Misirlisoy, 2012, 2014Bugg, 2014Bugg, , 2015Bugg & Hutchison, 2013;Bugg, Jacoby, & Chanani, 2011;Grandjean et al, 2013;Hazeltine & Mordkoff, 2014;Levin & Tzelgov, 2016;Schmidt, 2013aSchmidt, , 2014a.…”