In context-dependent control studies, two spatial contexts are created, and the proportion of the congruent Stroop items differs between them. For instance, at the top-half of the screen, items are mostly presented congruent (75% congruent, 25% incongruent, MC), and at the bottom-half, items are mostly presented incongruent (75% incongruent, 25% incongruent, MI). The Stroop effect in the MC context is larger than the one in the MI context, corresponding to the CSPC effect. While some researchers claimed that the CSPC effect was driven by item-specific control (item-specific proportion congruency [ISPC] effect), others suggested that it was an independent effect. Additionally, it was demonstrated that contingency between word and response and Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA) changed the ISPC effect. In this study, we conducted three Stroop experiments using SOA and contingency manipulations to investigate whether the CSPC effect was different from the ISPC effect. Results showed that the CSPC effect was not significant when SOA was manipulated, and the contingency level did not affect this result. These findings suggested that the CSPC effect was different from the ISPC effect. In addition, it was concluded that the CSPC effect was affected by the task features, and it was hard to observe this effect in tasks not requiring spatial attention. Keywords:
Cognitive Control, Selective Attention, Stroop Effect, Context-Specific Proportion Congruency Effect