Dissociating proactive and reactive control in the Stroop task

Abstract

The Dual Mechanisms of Control framework posits the existence of two distinct control mechanisms, proactive and reactive, which may operate independently. However, this independence has been difficult to study with most experimental paradigms. The Stroop task may provide a useful way of assessing the independence of control mechanisms since the task elicits two types of proportion congruency effects, list-wide and item-specific, thought to reflect proactive and reactive control respectively. The present research tested whether these two proportion congruency effects can be used to dissociate proactive and reactive control. In two separate participant samples, we demonstrate that list-wide and item-specific proportion congruency effects are stable, exist in the same participants, and appear in different task conditions. Moreover, we identify two distinct behavioral signatures, the congruency cost and the transfer cost, which doubly dissociate the two effects. Together, the results are consistent with the view that proactive and reactive control reflect independent mechanisms.

Inducing Proactive Control Shifts in the AX-CPT

“…However, it could also be the case that proactive and reactive control are partly dissociable; that is, a participant could simultaneously use both proactive and reactive control, or only one mechanism, or neither of the two. This idea was described in the original account of the DMC framework (Braver et al, 2007) and preliminary evidence suggests that it might be correct (Gonthier et al, 2016). If it is the case that proactive and reactive control are dissociable, then cognitive control shifts may not be adequately described as shifts from reactive to proactive control or the reverse; instead, it is possible that an experimental manipulation could influence one mechanism but not the other.…”

The task novelty paradox: Flexible control of inflexible neural pathways during rapid instructed task learning

“…For example, in the classic Stroop task, when interference is relatively rare, and further, when incongruent trials are clearly signaled in a trial-by-trial fashion by a relevant feature of the stimulus (a particular presentation color), then reactive control appears to be the preferred mode. In contrast, when Stroop interference is more frequent and expected, but not linked with any specific stimulus features, then proactive control appears to be preferred (Gonthier et al, 2016). …”

Reappraising cognitive control: normal reactive adjustments following conflict processing are abolished by proactive emotion regulation

“…These two effects accord well with the DMC model (Braver, Gray, & Burgess, 2007, Braver, 2012 assuming that changes in conflict frequency alter the balance between proactive and reactive control. When conflict frequency was high, the cC sequence was probably unexpected and/or violating a specific mind set or preparation process geared towards conflict processing, resulting in turn in a systematic slowing done for these infrequent cC trials (Gonthier, Braver, & Bugg, 2016).…”

“…CC is adaptive and flexible in the sense that the involvement of reactive and proactive control processes actually depends upon specific factors that can be external or internal, and manipulated at the experimental level. For instance, previous studies clearly showed that CC can be geared towards proactive control when the frequency of incongruent trials within the block is transiently increased (Bugg,4 2012; Gonthier, Braver, & Bugg, 2016), the duration or gap between two consecutive trials is increased (Egner et al, 2010), or specific cues informing about the nature of the upcoming trial type are used (Aarts, Roelofs, & Van Turennout, 2008). Hence, the amount of reactive and proactive control used to deal with interference likely varies depending on specific factors (Torres-Quesada, Funes, & Lupianez, 2013;Funes et al, 2010).…”