No abstract

No abstract

Two experiments investigated competition between cues that predicted the correct target response to a target stimulus in a response conflict procedure using a flanker task. Subjects received trials with five-character arrays with a central target character and distractor flanker characters that matched (compatible) or did not match (incompatible) the central target. Subjects’ expectancies for compatible and incompatible trials were manipulated by presenting pre-trial cues that signaled the occurrence of compatible or incompatible trials. On some trials, a single cue predicted the target stimulus and the required target response. On other trials, a second redundant, predictive cue was also present on such trials. The results showed an effect of competition between cues for control over strategic responding to the target stimuli, a finding that is predicted by associative learning theories. The finding of competition between pre-trial cues that predict incompatible trials, but not cues that predict compatible trials, suggests that different strategic processes may occur during adaptation to conflict when different kinds of trials are expected.

Many studies have examined competition between cues for learning. Research examining cue competition has used cues that predict the occurrence of an outcome, or, in some rare cases, competition between cues that predict the absence of an outcome (predicting that an outcome explicitly will not occur). Alternatively, learned irrelevance occurs when a cue lacks the ability to predict the occurrence or absence of an outcome. Using an Eriksen flanker task, the present study evaluated competition among cues that do not have predictive value, that is, competition for learning that an outcome is unpredictable. Subjects' inability to predict the occurrence of compatible and incompatible trials was manipulated by presenting cues that were uncorrelated with these trial types. Accuracy results showed competition between cues possessing a lack of predictive ability. The results are discussed in terms of propositional and associative theories of learning.

No abstract