Multiple expectancies underlie the congruency sequence effect in confound-minimized tasks

Abstract

The congruency sequence effect (CSE) occurs when the congruency effect observed in tasks such as the Eriksen flanker task is smaller on trials preceded by an incongruent trial relative to trials preceded by a congruent trial. The CSE has been attributed to a range of factors including repetition expectancy, conflict monitoring, feature integration, and contingency learning. To clarify the debate surrounding the CSE and the mechanisms underlying its occurrence, researchers have developed confound-minimized congruency tasks designed to control for feature-integration and contingency-learning effects. A CSE is often observed in confound-minimized tasks, indicating that the effect is driven by repetition expectancy, conflict monitoring, or a combination of the two. Here, we propose and test a variant of the repetition expectancy account that emphasizes how multiple expectations can be formed simultaneously based upon the congruency type (congruent vs. incongruent) and the congruency repetition type (congruency repetition vs. congruency alternation) of the most recent trial. Data from confound-minimized versions of the prime-probe task were found to support this novel account. Data from confound-minimized versions of the Eriksen flanker, Simon, and Stroop tasks indicate that repetition-priming confounds often remain in these tasks, potentially undermining the conclusions of previous work. We discuss the implications of these findings for ongoing theoretical debates surrounding the CSE.

Adjustments of selective attention to response conflict – controlling for perceptual conflict, target-distractor identity, and congruency level sequence pertaining to the congruency sequence effect

“…As neither the three-way interaction of Congruency Level of Current Trial, Congruency Level of Preceding Trial, and Preceding Trial's Congruency Level Repetition Type, nor the four-way interaction involving all factors reached statistical significance, our results provide no further support for Erb and Aschenbrenner's (2019) conjecture that expectations are formed concerning the repetition of the preceding sequence of congruency levels. Although statistical power may have been insufficient to detect such subtle effects, it is also conceivable that procedural differences like the uncertainty regarding target and distractor categories (digit, letter) or the intermixed trials of the search task interfered with such expectancy formation in our experiment.…”

“…It must even be considered that different types of repetition effects pertain to first-and higher-order repetitions of the congruency level. Noteworthy in this connection,Erb and Aschenbrenner (2019), using the split-task method, found the CSE selectively in sequences in which the congruency level of trial N-1 matched the level of trial N-2. The authors accounted for this result pattern assuming expectation of a repetition of the previous congruency level as well as of repetition of the previous congruency level sequence (i.e., repetition vs. alternation), acknowledging, however, that "N-2-to-N" feature sequences might provide an alternative explanation.…”

Tracking continuities in the flanker task: From continuous flow to movement trajectories

“…On this account, participants' hand movements should not be pulled toward the incorrect response on iC trials because all of information presented on these trials cues the correct response. In contrast, the feature-integration account (Hommel, 2004;Hommel et al, 2004) and expectancy-based accounts (Duthoo et al, 2013;Erb & Aschenbrenner, 2019) predict that participants would be more likely to activate the incorrect response on iC than cC trials because of partially overlapping stimulus and response features or because of expectations regarding the congruency of the upcoming trial.…”

Linking the dynamics of cognitive control to individual differences in working memory capacity: Evidence from reaching behavior.

“…The Gratton effect has been attributed to a range of factors including feature integration (Hommel, 2004; Hommel et al, 2004; Nieuwenhuis et al, 2006), conflict monitoring (Botvinick et al, 2001; Egner et al, 2010; Ullsperger et al, 2005), and repetition expectancy (Erb & Aschenbrenner, 2019; Duthoo et al, 2013; Gratton et al, 1992). The pattern of effects observed in reach curvatures in the current study is most consistent with the feature integration account given that this account predicts that the Gratton effect will be observed in response-repeat trials but not response-switch trials in 2AFC versions of the flanker task (Nieuwenhuis et al, 2006).…”

“…On our view, efforts to evaluate the split-half reliability of trial sequence effects will benefit from a careful consideration of how different processes underlying performance are modulated by different factors, including the level of conflict occurring on the previous trial, the occurrence of feature-integration effects, and a participant’s level of preparedness for different trial types (Erb, 2020; Erb & Aschenbrenner, 2019). Although the terms Gratton effect and congruency sequence effect are used to refer to the observation that smaller congruency effects are observed on trials preceded by an incongruent trial relative to those preceded by a congruent trial, this usage may mask important differences of interest.…”