Proportion of conflict, contingency learning, and recency effects in a Stroop task

Abstract

Recent research on the relation between learning and cognitive control has assumed that conflict modulates learning, either by increasing arousal and hence improving learning in high conflict situations (Verguts & Notebaert, 2008), or by inducing control, and hence inhibiting the processing of distracters and their eventual association with the imperative responses (Whitehead et al., 2018). We analyze whether the amount of conflict, manipulated through the proportion of congruency in a set of Stroop inducer trials, affects learning of contingencies established on diagnostic trials composed by neutral words associated with color responses. The results reproduced the list-wide proportion of congruency effect on the inducer trials, and showed evidence of contingency learning on the diagnostic trials, but provided no indication that this learning was modulated by the level of conflict. Specific analyses conducted to control for the impact of episodic effects on the expression of learning indicated that contingency effects were not driven by the incremental processes that could be expected by associative learning, but rather they were due to the impact of the most recent trial involving the same distracter. Accordingly, these effects disappeared when tested selectively on trials that required a non-matching response with respect to the previous occurrence of the distracter. We interpret this result in the context of the debate on how learning and memory interact with the processes of cognitive control.

Accounting for Proportion Congruency Effects in the Stroop Task in a Confounded Setup: Retrieval of Stimulus-Response Episodes Explains it All

“…The contribution of episodic retrieval processes on the PC effect, on the other hand, has not yet been investigated systematically (for a recent exception, see Jiménez et al, 2021 ). In particular, no systematic study has yet been conducted that tested influences of different types of episodic retrieval (retrieval of responses, retrieval of control states) simultaneously, allowing for a competition between these different accounts.…”

“…Attempts to eliminate complete or partial repetitions often do not fully eliminate stimulus-based retrieval processes, since only immediate repetitions were excluded (e.g., Jiménez et al, 2021 ; Xu & Mordkoff, 2021), which is a suboptimal strategy not just for an analysis of episodic retrieval processes ( Aben et al, 2017 ).…”

“…These studies produced evidence for both accounts, showing that differences in item-based contingencies explained PC effects independently of the overall proportion congruency (for reviews, see Schmidt, 2013a;2019), but also showing that differences in the global proportion congruency had an influence on items for which the contingencies between word and color were fixed (e.g., Spinelli & Lupker, 2021). The contribution of episodic retrieval processes on the PC effect, on the other hand, has not yet been investigated systematically (for a recent exception, see Jiménez et al, 2021). In particular, no systematic study has yet been conducted that tested influences of different types of episodic retrieval (retrieval of responses, retrieval of control states) simultaneously, allowing for a competition between these different accounts.…”

“…(3) Experiments that eliminate the influence of many processes do not allow for a direct comparison of the contribution of the different processes (e.g., episodic retrieval-based processes in comparison to control-based adjustments and contingency learning) under conditions where these different processes compete with each other. Such a comparison under confounded conditions, however, may sometimes be the core research question: For instance, testing whether abstract, associative contingency learning influences responding over and above episodic, instance-based retrieval processes can only be achieved in a situation in which both effects are operative (e.g., Giesen et al, 2020;Jiménez et al, 2021;Schmidt et al, 2020;Xu & Mordkoff, 2021). (4) Relatedly, creating conditions that eliminate the influence of all processes except one often result in artificial conditions which no longer resemble the original PC situation.…”

Being in the Know: The Role of Awareness and Retrieval of Transient Stimulus-Response Bindings in Selective Contingency Learning

“…In detail, we aimed to clarify the role of automatic retrieval of incidental stimulus-response bindings in producing selective learning effects for salient versus nonsalient cues. The second research aim is motivated by recent findings which support the view that contingency learning effects can be explained by an automatic retrieval of stimulus-response bindings (SRB) from memory ( Giesen et al, 2020 ; Schmidt et al, 2020 ; see also Jiménez et al, 2021 ; Rothermund et al, 2022 ). SRBs reflect links between a presented stimulus and an executed response, which are stored in episodic memory ( event files ; Hommel, 1998 ).…”