What is cued by faces in the face-based context-specific proportion congruent manipulation?

Context-specific adaptation for head fakes in basketball: a study on player-specific fake-frequency schedules

“…Recent studies showed that episodic retrieval of the most recent episode is a better predictor for performance than contingency learning; what is more, it may also explain effects of stimulus-response contingencies to a large extent (Giesen et al, 2020;Schmidt et al, 2020;Xu & Mordkoff, 2020). Together, both cognitive control accounts (Jacoby et al, 2003) and accounts, which propose some kind of stimulus-response associative learning (Frings et al, 2020;Giesen et al, 2020;Hutcheon, 2022;Schmidt & Besner, 2008), can explain the adaptation to proportion congruency at a trial-by-trial level.…”

“…Crump et al (2006) therefore concluded that also task-irrelevant contextual information (e.g., location) can cue the retrieval of attentional control processes, as described by Jacoby et al (2003). Other task-irrelevant contextual features, which can retrieve control processes, are color (Lehle & Hübner, 2008), the shape surrounding the stimulus (Schouppe et al, 2014), the temporal presentation windows (Wendt & Kiesel, 2011), the format of alphanumerical stimuli (Reuss et al, 2014), or human faces (Cañadas et al, 2013;Hutcheon, 2022).…”

“…One popular explanation refers to contingency learning (Schmidt et al, 2007;Schmidt & Besner, 2008). Participants learn contingencies between a task-irrelevant stimulus feature (e.g., word meaning) and a response, and use these contingencies to predict the response associated with the distracting word (for variations in contingency learning processes, see Hutcheon, 2022). Besides contingency learning, episodic stimulus-response retrieval processes might also explain proportion congruency effects (for an overview, see Frings et al, 2020).…”

A spatial version of the Stroop task for examining proactive and reactive control independently from non-conflict processes

“…In the context-specific PC paradigms, the two sets being contrasted are defined by a task-irrelevant and non-interfering feature (e.g., the positioning of colored words above or below fixation, with the words’ position having virtually no impact on color-naming performance). Although this paradigm also tends to produce a PC effect (Crump et al, 2006 ), there is currently considerable controversy as to whether it really involves conflict-induced control (Bugg et al, 2020 ; Hutcheon, 2022 ; Hutcheon & Spieler, 2017 ; Schmidt & Lemercier, 2019 ; Weidler et al, 2022 ). For this reason, in the following, we mainly focus on list-wide and item-specific PC paradigms.…”

“…However, vocal responses can be difficult for researchers to collect, especially in neuroimaging research (in which any head motion must typically be avoided and, accordingly, vocal responses to Stroop stimuli have rarely been used) 2 and in online experiments (in which remote use of voice keys is typically unsupported by relevant experimental software), with these types of experiments, particularly online experiments, becoming increasingly common in recent years (Arechar & Rand, 2021 ). In order to circumvent the problem that vocal responses pose, more recently several researchers have gone to using manual responses to colors and pictures in PC paradigms (e.g., Bejjani et al, 2020 ; Bejjani & Egner, 2021 ; Blais & Bunge, 2010 ; Chiu et al, 2017 ; Crump et al, 2017 ; Hutcheon, 2022 ).…”