Attentional control adjustments in Eriksen and Stroop task performance can be independent of response conflict

Abstract

In the Eriksen flanker and colour-word Stroop tasks, the response time (RT) difference between incongruent and congruent trials is smaller following incongruent trials than following congruent trials: the "Gratton effect" (Gratton, Coles, & Donchin, 1992). According to the prevailing conflict-monitoring theory (Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, & Cohen, 2001), the Gratton effect reflects attentional control adjustment following response conflict on incongruent trials. However, because previous studies compared incongruent and congruent trials, it remains unclear to what extent the Gratton effect is driven by incongruent rather than congruent trials. To resolve this issue, we included neutral trials in addition to incongruent and congruent trials in the Eriksen (Experiment 1) and Stroop (Experiment 2) tasks. Participants responded manually and vocally in both tasks. Moreover, we assessed responding to Stroop stimuli that were preceded by neutral cues or by incongruent- or congruent-predicting cues (Experiment 3). In all three experiments, the RT difference between incongruent and congruent trials was larger for postcongruent trials than for postincongruent and postneutral trials. These findings suggest that control adjustments can be independent of response conflict, challenging conflict-monitoring theory.

Context, not conflict, drives cognitive control.

“…Furthermore, a similar pattern of results has recently been obtained in the Eriksen and the Stroop task (Lamers & Roelofs, 2011).…”

Congruency sequence effects and previous response times: conflict adaptation or temporal learning?

“…This version also might also predict a stronger effect of previous RT following incongruent trials (wherein conflict is relatively high) than following congruent trials (wherein conflict is relatively low), which we did not observe. However, yet another version of the notion that participants adapt to response conflict suggests that attention is widened in response to the absence of conflict on congruent trials, rather than narrowed in response to the presence of conflict on incongruent trials (Compton, Huber, Levinson, & Zheutlin, 2012;Lamers & Roelofs, 2011). This version might therefore better explain why previous-trial RT influences the congruency effect to a greater degree when the previous trial was congruent as compared to incongruent.…”

Impaired visual decision-making in individuals with amblyopia

“…The difference in performance between congruent and incongruent trials is referred to as the flanker-congruency effect. Current behavioral models of the Eriksen task posit that translation of the sensory representation into execution of the appropriate motor response relies on attentional and top-down cognitive control processes, both of which are hypothesized to originate beyond the level of stimulus encoding (Botvinick, et al, 2001; Egner, 2008; Lamers & Roelofs, 2011; Yeung, Botvinick, & Cohen, 2004). The recruitment, engagement, and monitoring of cognitive control as a result of response conflict in the Eriksen task have been associated with increased activation of medial frontal brain areas such as the anterior cingulate cortex (Botvinick, Cohen, & Carter, 2004; Egner, 2008; van Veen & Carter, 2002).…”