Shifts in target modality cause attentional reset: Evidence from sequential modulation of crossmodal congruency effects

Abstract

Reduced congruency effects after a preceding incongruent trial suggest a conflict-monitoring process, which reactively triggers the recruitment of attentional control in subsequent trials. In the present study, we assessed this sequential modulation of crossmodal congruency effects separately in two different tasks. Participants performed a location judgment task and a numerical judgment task in a block-wise fashion in a modality-switching paradigm. Stimuli were presented simultaneously in two modalities and were either congruent or incongruent (e.g., left visual object, right sound) with each other. The target modality was indicated by a cue, so that the target modalities either repeated or switched in successive trials. For both tasks, the results indicated reduced congruency effects after an incongruent trial only for modality repetitions, but not for switches. This finding suggests that modality switches induce a shift in episodic context, which in turn leads to an attentional reset. This reset eliminates the sequential modulation of congruency effects.Keywords Conflict adaptation . Attentional state . Attentional reset . Modality switching Conflicts arise at many processing levels throughout perception and action, influencing the efficiency of our actions. A predominant idea of how our cognitive system deals with such conflicts refers to the existence of a conflict-monitoring system (Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, & Cohen, 2001). Whenever conflict is detected and evaluated by this system, reactively adapted mechanisms of cognitive control increase processing selectivity (i.e., selective attention) so that conflict is reduced in subsequent processing episodes. For example, attentional biasing of task-relevant aspects is strengthened and task-irrelevant aspects have less influence, resulting in improved performance (Egner, 2007).Conflicts can be induced experimentally by providing incongruent stimulus information. For example, in the Stroop task (Stroop, 1935), participants are supposed to indicate the font color of written color words. In congruent trials, the word Bred^is also displayed in red, and Bred^is the correct answer, whereas in incongruent trials, the word Bred^might be displayed in blue (with Bblue^as the correct answer). Here, conflict arises between the automatically read color word and the to-be-named font color. Performance is usually better in congruent (no-conflict) than in incongruent (conflict) trials, termed the congruency effect.

Effector system-specific sequential modulations of congruency effects

“…Our study further complements recent work by Kreutzfeldt, Stephan, Willmes, and Koch (2016), who held the effector system constant across trials (manual key presses) but varied (and cued) the relevant modality of a bimodal stimulus (auditory-visual). Similar to our results, a sequential modulation was only observed when the relevant stimulus modality repeated from the previous trial n-1 but not when it switched.…”

“…In case of effector system switch trials, however, essentially the full repetitions in congruent-congruent or incongruentincongruent sequences are eliminated, which should still be faster than the other sequences. Thus, this account predicts the same pattern for effector system repetitions and switches (see also Kreutzfeldt et al, 2016, for a more detailed discussion).…”

“…In a broader way, Kreutzfeldt et al (2016; see also Abrahamse, Braem, Notebaert, & Verguts, 2016) suggested that various instances of non-generalized conflict adaptation should be interpreted as indicating switches of "contexts," which should "disrupt the continuity of cognitive processing across episodes" (p. 1467). In this sense, one could argue that the cue signaling the appropriate effector system also sets up one of two contexts and thus leads to a disruption of sequential modulations.…”

Monitoring and control in multitasking

“…For instance, Kiesel, Kunde, and Hoffmann (2006) investigated congruency effects in a task-switching paradigm and observed a Gratton effect in task repetitions, but not in task switches, suggesting that the conflict-control loop does not generalize across task contexts (see also Kreutzfeldt, Stephan, Willmes, & Koch, 2016;, for similar observations). Fischer, Plessow, Kunde, and Kiesel (2010) presented Simon stimuli either alone (single-task context) or together with another stimulus (dualtask context) and observed a Gratton effect from one Simon stimulus to the next when the context remained the same, but not when the context changed.…”

Processing time not modality dominates shift costs in the modality-shifting effect

“…In terms of the Conflict-Monitoring Hypothesis model, the system evaluates the present level of conflict, passes them to the centers responsible for control, and activates an adjustment in the strength of influence on future processing (Botvinick et al, 2001). Consistent with other work, a modality-shift leads to an attentional reset, and interrupts the prediction created from a series of congruent targets (Kreutzfeldt, Stephan, Willmes, & Koch, 2016). In the SART, this shift 'cost' is likely to be an advantage by delaying the automaticity of response execution, and allowing more time to fully process a target in time to inhibit a habitual response.…”