Strategic Allocation of Attention Reduces Temporally Predictable Stimulus Conflict

Abstract

Humans are able to continuously monitor environmental situations and adjust their behavioral strategies to optimize performance. Here we investigate the behavioral and brain adjustments that occur when conflicting stimulus elements are, or are not, temporally predictable. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were collected while manual-response variants of the Stroop task were performed in which the stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) between the relevant-color and irrelevant-word stimulus components were either randomly intermixed, or held constant, within each experimental run. Results indicated that the size of both the neural and behavioral effects of stimulus incongruency varied with the temporal arrangement of the stimulus components, such that the random-SOA arrangements produced the greatest incongruency effects at the earliest irrelevant-first SOA (−200 ms) and the constant-SOA arrangements produced the greatest effects with simultaneous presentation. These differences in conflict processing were accompanied by rapid (~150 ms) modulations of the sensory ERPs to the irrelevant distracter components when they occurred consistently first. These effects suggest that individuals are able to strategically allocate attention in time to mitigate the influence of a temporally predictable distracter. As these adjustments are instantiated by the subjects without instruction, they reveal a form of rapid strategic learning for dealing with temporally predictable stimulus incongruency.

The congruency sequence effect emerges when the distracter precedes the target

“…It would therefore appear that our use of a relatively long ISI revealed important information about the nature of the "controldriven" CSE without fundamentally altering the processes that contribute to this phenomenon. Consistent with this view, manipulating the ISI between the distracter and the target in distracter interference tasks has revealed a great deal about the nature of congruency effects, even when the ISI was relatively long (Appelbaum et al, 2012;Eriksen & Schultz, 1979;Machado et al, 2007).…”

“…whether it is maximal when the distracter appears shortly before the target or simultaneously with the target (Appelbaum, Boehler, Won, Davis, & Woldorff, 2012;Donohue, Appelbaum, Park, Roberts, & Woldorff, 2013;Glaser & Glaser, 1982;Mattler, 2003;Wendt, Kiesel, Geringswald, Purmann, & Fischer, 2014). Although investigating the sources of this variability was not the aim of our study, we made use of it when considering whether certain variants of the attentional shift account, which posit a strong relationship between the CSE and the congruency effect, could explain our findings.…”

The Dynamics of Proactive and Reactive Cognitive Control Processes in the Human Brain

“…In previous research we explored the behavioral and neural underpinnings of proactive and reactive control by measuring behavioral performance and event-related potentials (ERPs) as participants performed Stroop color-identification tasks in which the color and word components were separated in time (Appelbaum, Boehler, Won, Davis, & Woldorff, 2012; Appelbaum, Meyerhoff, & Woldorff, 2009). In these studies, Stroop color and word stimuli were separated by stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) of −200, −100, 0, 100, and 200 ms, while event-related potentials (ERPs) of brain activity were recorded.…”

“…The first of these, the Incongruency Negativity (N INC : often referred to as an N450), is a negative-polarity ERP wave that is larger in magnitude when evoked by incongruent stimuli as compared to either congruent or neutral stimuli. This component appears from approximately 300 to 550 ms post-stimulus over centro-parietal scalp locations (Appelbaum, et al, 2012; Appelbaum, et al, 2009; Larson, Kaufman, & Perlstein, 2009; Liotti, Woldorff, Perez, & Mayberg, 2000; Markela-Lerenc et al, 2004; Tillman & Wiens, 2011; West, 2003; West & Alain, 1999; West, Jakubek, Wymbs, Perry, & Moore, 2005) and has been associated with activity in the prefrontal cortex, specifically the ACC (Badzakova-Trajkov, Barnett, Waldie, & Kirk, 2009; Hanslmayr et al, 2008). This component has been generally related to conflict detection as it is larger for incongruent stimuli, yet can still be evoked after a response has been prepared (Coderre, Conklin, & van Heuven, 2011).…”

“…This component has been referred to by a number of different names, including the Late Positive Component 1 (LPC: Appelbaum, et al, 2012; Coderre, et al, 2011; Donohue, Liotti, Perez, & Woldorff, 2012; Liotti, et al, 2000), the slow positivity (SP: Chen & Melara, 2009), and the conflict-related slow potential (conflict SP: Larson, et al, 2009; West, 2003). This component has been modeled as arising from generators in the middle and/or inferior frontal gyri, as well as from the left extrastriate region (West, 2003), further implicating its role in conflict resolution processes.…”