Feeling the Conflict

Desender, Kobe; Opstal, Filip Van; Bussche, Eva Van den

doi:10.1177/0956797613511468

Cited by 99 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They explained their results by a meta-cognitive process: they assumed that subjects were aware of the consequences of the high proportion of incongruent trials (higher number of errors) and regulated their behavior accordingly, even though they were not aware of the conflict itself. This interpretation fits with the idea that masked stimuli cannot trigger cognitive control directly, but that the reportable consequences of these stimuli can [11,66,67]. Note that the priming effects in Jáskowski et al’s study are very strong (about 100 ms difference in reaction times and about 15% error rate in incongruent trials), allowing subjects to notice changes in these parameters.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Can application and transfer of strategy be observed in low visibility condition?

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been long assumed that cognitive control processes can only be applied on consciously visible stimuli, but empirical evidence is contradictory. In the present study, we investigated strategic adaptation to conflict both in unmasked and in low-visibility masked trials. Using a paradigm derived from the Stroop task, we studied the application of strategies, but also the transfer of a strategy developed in unmasked trials to masked trials, and the trial-to-trial dynamics of strategic processing. In unmasked trials, we found evidence of strategic adaptation to conflict, both in reaction times and in ERPs (N2 and P300). In masked trials we found no evidence of behavioral adaptation to conflict, but a modulation of the P300 was present in masked trials included in unmasked blocks, suggesting the existence of a transfer of strategy. Finally, trial-to-trial analyses in unmasked trials revealed a pattern suggestive of dynamic subjective adherence to the instructed strategy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Can application and transfer of strategy be observed in low visibility condition?

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gratton, Coles, and Donchin (1992) first reported that the compatibility effect is smaller when the previous flanker trial is incompatible versus compatible, a finding that since has been replicated many times (for reviews, see Clayson & Larson, 2013;Verguts & Notebaert, 2008). The dominant explanation for this phenomenon is that the experience of conflict-particularly when conflict is aversive (see Desender, Van Opstal, & Van den Bussche, 2014;Driesbach & Fischer, 2015;Inzlicht, Bartholow, & Hirsch, 2015;Steenbergen, Band, & Hommel, 2009)-elicits adjustments in cognitive control so that subsequent conflict can be better managed-a so-called conflict adaptation effect. 1 This explanation accords with dominant theories emphasizing the dynamic interplay of conflict monitoring, attention control, and response implementation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Temporal dynamics of reactive cognitive control as revealed by event‐related brain potentials

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reactive cognitive control refers to a complementary set of cognitive operations by which individuals monitor for and detect the presence of goal-interfering conflict (i.e., conflict monitoring/evaluation) and, subsequently, initiate attention-focusing and response selection processes to bolster goal-directed action in the face of such conflict (regulative control). The purpose of the current study was to characterize the nature of conflict adaptation in both components of this dynamic process across sequences of trials and, more broadly, across time as participants complete a cognitive control task. Fifty-two young adults completed a standard arrow flanker task while behavioral and ERP data were recorded. Multilevel modeling of sequences of compatible and incompatible trials over time showed that, whereas response time data demonstrated a typical conflict adaptation effect throughout the task, N2 and frontal slow wave (FSW) indices of conflict monitoring and regulative control, respectively, demonstrated significant conflict adaptation only during the early part of the task. Moreover, although differential change in N2 and FSW over time suggested that conflict monitoring and regulative control were dissociable, a reciprocal relation between them was maintained throughout the task and was not present in a component theoretically unrelated to conflict adaptation (visual attention-related N1). Findings are discussed in terms of compensatory processes that help to maintain goal-directed performance even as control-related neural responses become fatigued.

show abstract

“…That is, conflict produces a subjective experience that is aversive, and thereby triggers adjustments in control that serve to counter the negative affect (see Dreisbach & Fischer, 2011, for important evidence showing that conflict-free, disfluent stimuli are also aversive and trigger such control adjustments; cf. Desender, Van Opstal, & Van den Bussche, 2014, who found that the subjective experience of conflict drives control adjustments underlying the congruency sequence effect). This is pertinent to the present findings because pupillometry appears to be well suited to detecting changes in affective experience (see Chiesa, Liuzza, Acciarino, & Aglioti, 2015 for evidence that pupillometry is even sensitive to subliminally presented affect primes).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive effort is modulated outside of the explicit awareness of conflict frequency: Evidence from pupillometry.

Diede¹,

Bugg²

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Classic theories of cognitive control conceptualized controlled processes as slow, strategic, and willful, with automatic processes being fast and effortless. The context-specific proportion compatibility (CSPC) effect, the reduction in the compatibility effect in a context (e.g., location) associated with a high relative to low likelihood of conflict, challenged classic theories by demonstrating fast and flexible control that appears to operate outside of conscious awareness. Two theoretical questions yet to be addressed are whether the CSPC effect is accompanied by context-dependent variation in effort, and whether the exertion of effort depends on explicit awareness of context-specific task demands. To address these questions, pupil diameter was measured during a CSPC paradigm. Stimuli were randomly presented in either a mostly compatible location or a mostly incompatible location. Replicating prior research, the CSPC effect was found. The novel finding was that pupil diameter was greater in the mostly incompatible location compared to the mostly compatible location, despite participants’ lack of awareness of context-specific task demands. Additionally, this difference occurred regardless of trial type or a preceding switch in location. These patterns support the view that context (location) dictates selection of optimal attentional settings in the CSPC paradigm, and varying levels of effort and performance accompany these settings. Theoretically, these patterns imply that cognitive control may operate fast, flexibly, and outside of awareness, but not effortlessly.

show abstract

Feeling the Conflict

Cited by 99 publications

References 34 publications

Can application and transfer of strategy be observed in low visibility condition?

Can application and transfer of strategy be observed in low visibility condition?

Temporal dynamics of reactive cognitive control as revealed by event‐related brain potentials

Cognitive effort is modulated outside of the explicit awareness of conflict frequency: Evidence from pupillometry.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About