Quantitative Relation Between Conflict and Response Inhibition in the Flanker Task

Takezawa, Tomohiro

doi:10.2466/pr0.97.6.515-526

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As demonstrated in previous studies (B. A. Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974; Hübner et al, 2010; Mattler, 2006; Takezawa & Miyatani, 2005; Theeuwes et al, 2004), target–distractor distance affects the magnitude of the distractor compatibility effect. The task order was varied so that half of the participants began the experiment with a fixed distractor location, and the other half with an unpredictable distractor location.…”

Section: The Current Studysupporting

confidence: 64%

“…Attentional focus should be easier and more effective with a far distractor, given that an increase in target–distractor distance facilitates target selection (B. A. Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974; Hübner et al, 2010; Mattler, 2006; Takezawa & Miyatani, 2005; Theeuwes et al, 2004). Assuming that control of spatial attention underlies the effects of location certainty and distractor distance, we expect that the distractor distance matters only when the distractor locations are unpredictable.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The top-down control of attentional window can be effective when a target is precued (Johnson et al, 2002), when the distractor is far from the target (B. A. Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974; Hübner et al, 2010; Mattler, 2006; Paquet & Craig, 1997; Takezawa & Miyatani, 2005; Theeuwes et al, 2004), and when the distractor location is fixed (Marciano & Yeshurun, 2011; Yeh & Lin, 2013). Top-down control can be less effective when a distractor receives a higher attentional weight by being perceptually grouped with the target (Baylis & Driver, 1992; Cosman & Vecera, 2012; Yeh & Lin, 2013), when a distractor is salient (Biggs & Gibson, 2010, 2014; Eltiti et al, 2005), and when the distractor location is unpredictable (Marciano & Yeshurun, 2011; Yeh & Lin, 2013).…”

Section: Dual Mechanisms Of Flanker Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These factors include, among other things, the perceptual load of the target processing (Lavie, 1995, 2005), the number of neutral nontargets (Tsal & Benoni, 2010; Wilson, Muroi, & MacLeod, 2011), the attentional focus (Chen & Cave, 2013; Chen & Chan, 2007; Johnson, McGrath, & McNeil, 2002; Paquet & Craig, 1997; Wilson et al, 2011; Yantis & Johnston, 1990), the target–distractor grouping (Baylis & Driver, 1992; Cosman & Vecera, 2012; Fox, 1998; Yeh & Lin, 2013) and distance (B. A. Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974; Hübner, Steinhauser, & Lehle, 2010; Mattler, 2006; Paquet & Craig, 1997; Takezawa & Miyatani, 2005; Theeuwes, Kramer, & Belopolsky, 2004), the distractor salience (Biggs & Gibson, 2010, 2014; Eltiti, Wallace, & Fox, 2005), and the number of locations at which a distractor could occur (Marciano & Yeshurun, 2011; Yeh & Lin, 2013). The locus of selective attention is malleable according to the stimulus-task context and is constrained by the limit of processing capacity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Selection history modulates the effects of dual mechanisms on flanker interference.

Yeh¹,

Lee²,

Chen³

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The limit of processing capacity and the effectiveness of top-down control are 2 mechanisms that underlie distractor interference in a flanker task. The current study investigates how the interblock selection history shaped by the target number and the predictability of distractor location may modulate the effects of these 2 mechanisms on flanker interference. Experiment 1 showed that the distractor compatibility effect was eliminated when the task array contained 4 or 5 identical targets, which reflected the capacity limit. The target number and distractor location's predictability (Experiment 2) or location predictability and target-distractor proximity (Experiment 3) were manipulated across blocks, while compatibility varied within blocks, with control efficacy underlying the effects of distractor location (predictability and proximity). The interblock selection history was induced by task order, beginning with 2 or 4 targets in Experiment 2 and with a distractor at a fixed or an unpredictable location in Experiment 3. Effects of interblock selection history were found when the intertrial context did not promote an incentive for altering the processing mode. When the incentive for enacting top-down control is high, intertrial contextual factors influence flanker interference. Contextual factors related to the target number and distractor location modulate flanker interference at multiple levels.

show abstract

Section: The Current Studysupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dual Mechanisms Of Flanker Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Selection history modulates the effects of dual mechanisms on flanker interference.

Yeh¹,

Lee²,

Chen³

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can happen when the irrelevant stimuli are particularly salient or because the inappropriate actions are part of the intrinsic response repertoire, sometimes even more than the relevant options (Praamstra et al, 1998; Mattler, 2003; Taylor et al, 2007; Chen et al, 2009; Mars et al, 2009; Michelet et al, 2010). Under these circumstances, the goal-orientated and inappropriate actions are in “conflict”, producing a behavioral cost as evidenced by the prolonged time usually needed to deliver the correct response and the reduced accuracy (Takezawa and Miyatani, 2005; Hughes and Yeung, 2011; Duprez et al, 2016). Conflict resolution is thought to rely on the recruitment of a set of areas in the frontal cortex; the engagement of this cognitive control network would depend on the degree to which conflict is expected in advance (Botvinick et al, 1999; Siegel et al, 2011; Young and Shapiro, 2011; Grandjean et al, 2012; King et al, 2012; Cohen and Ridderinkhof, 2013; Zmigrod et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Aging on Motor Inhibition during Action Preparation under Sensory Conflict

Duqué

Petitjean

Swinnen

2016

Front. Aging Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motor behaviors often require refraining from selecting options that may be part of the repertoire of natural response tendencies but that are in conflict with ongoing goals. The presence of sensory conflict has a behavioral cost but the latter can be attenuated in contexts where control processes are recruited because conflict is expected in advance, producing a behavioral gain compared to contexts where conflict occurs in a less predictable way. In the present study, we investigated the corticospinal correlates of these behavioral effects (both conflict-driven cost and context-related gain). To do so, we measured motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) of young and healthy older adults performing the Eriksen Flanker Task. Subjects performed button-presses according to a central arrow, flanked by irrelevant arrows pointing in the same (congruent trial) or opposite direction (incongruent trial). Conflict expectation was manipulated by changing the probability of congruent and incongruent trials in a given block. It was either high (mostly incongruent blocks, MIB, 80% incongruent trials) or low (mostly congruent blocks, MCB, 80% congruent). The MEP data indicate that the conflict-driven behavioral cost is associated with a strong increase in inappropriate motor activity regardless of the age of individuals, as revealed by larger MEPs in the non-responding muscle in incongruent than in congruent trials. However, this aberrant facilitation disappeared in both groups of subjects when conflict could be anticipated (i.e., in the MIBs) compared to when it occurred in a less predictably way (MCBs), probably allowing the behavioral gain observed in both the young and the older individuals. Hence, the ability to overcome and anticipate conflict was surprisingly preserved in the older adults. Nevertheless, some control processes are likely to evolve with age because the behavioral gain observed in the MIB context was associated with an attenuated suppression of MEPs at the time of the imperative signal (i.e., before conflict is actually detected) in older individuals, suggesting altered motor inhibition, compared to young individuals. In addition, the behavioral analysis suggests that young and older adults rely on different strategies to cope with conflict, including a change in speed-accuracy tradeoff.

show abstract

Executive control of attention in individuals with contamination-related obsessive-compulsive symptoms

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In the present study, we examined executive control of attention in individuals with contamination-related obsessive-compulsive (OC) symptoms using a modified version of the Eriksen flanker task. The task indexes one’s ability to resolve attentional conflict between different responses and to ignore task distracters. Methods For the present study, we modified the original flanker task using affective words to examine the effect of threat-relevant stimuli on executive control of attention. Consistent with research on information processing biases in individuals with OC symptoms, we hypothesized that the flanker interference effect (i.e., difference in response latencies between incongruent and congruent flanker trials) will be greater for threat-related flankers in individuals with OC symptoms (n = 32), relative to a control group (n = 36). Results Results of our study were consistent with our hypothesis: The interference effect for threat flankers was greater in individuals with OC symptoms than in those low in symptoms. Moreover, there was no differential interference effect in the low and high symptom groups for neutral flankers. Conclusions These findings suggest that the presence of threat-relevant distracters disrupts executive control of attention in individuals with contamination-related OC symptoms. These results are consistent with extant research on attentional biases in individuals with clinical and sub-clinical symptoms of OCD.

show abstract

Quantitative Relation Between Conflict and Response Inhibition in the Flanker Task

Cited by 10 publications

References 17 publications

Selection history modulates the effects of dual mechanisms on flanker interference.

Selection history modulates the effects of dual mechanisms on flanker interference.

Effect of Aging on Motor Inhibition during Action Preparation under Sensory Conflict

Executive control of attention in individuals with contamination-related obsessive-compulsive symptoms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About