Keywords
Selective Attention
Stroop Effect
Context-Specific Proportion Congruency Effect
How to Cite
Abstract
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
References
Amer, T., Campbell, K. L. ve Hasher, L. (2016). Cognitive control as a double-edged sword. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(12), 905-915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.10.002
Atalay, N. B., ve Misirlisoy, M. (2012). Can contingency learning alone account for item-specific control? Evidence from within-and between-language ISPC effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(6), 1578-1590. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028458
Atalay, N. B., ve Misirlisoy, M. (2014). ISPC effect is not observed when the word comes too late: A time course analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01410
Blais, C., Robidoux, S., Risko, E. F., ve Besner, D. (2007). Item-specific adaptation and the conflict- monitoring hypothesis: a computational model. Psychological Review 114(4), 1076-1086. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.1076
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., ve Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624-652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624
Bozkurt, Ö. (2019). Is spatial uncertainty necessary for the context-specific proportion congruency effect? [Master's thesis, Middle East Technical University].
Braem, S., Bugg, J. M., Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J., Weissman, D. H., Notebaert, W., ve Egner, T. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(9), 769-783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.002
Bugg, J. M. (2015). The relative attractiveness of distractors and targets affects the coming and going of item- specific control: Evidence from flanker tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(2), 373-389. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0752-x
Bugg, J. M., ve Crump, M. J. (2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: A review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00367
Bugg, J. M., ve Hutchison, K. A. (2013). Converging evidence for control of color–word Stroop interference at the item level. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(2), 433-449. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029145
Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., ve Chanani, S. (2011b). Why it is too early to lose control in accounts of item- specific proportion congruency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(3), 844-859. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019957
Bugg, J. M., McDaniel, M. A., Scullin, M. K., ve Braver, T. S. (2011a). Revealing list-level control in the Stroop task by uncovering its benefits and a cost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(5), 1595-1606. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024670
Bugg, J. M., Suh, J., Colvett, J. S., ve Lehmann, S. G. (2020). What can be learned in a context-specific proportion congruence paradigm? Implications for reproducibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46(9), 1029-1050. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000801
Bugg, J. M., Suh, J., ve Colvett, J. S. (2022). The dominance of item learning in the location-specific proportion congruence paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 75(8), 1497-1513. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211055162
Chajut, E., Schupak, A., ve Algom, D. (2009). Are spatial and dimensional attention separate? Evidence from Posner, Stroop, and Eriksen tasks. Memory & Cognition, 37(6), 924-934. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.6.924
Colvett, J. S., ve Bugg, J. M. (2022). Meaningful boundaries create boundary conditions for control. Psychological Research, 86(5), 1615-1635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01580-9
Corballis, P. M., ve Gratton, G. (2003). Independent control of processing strategies for different locations in the visual field. Biological Psychology, 64(1-2), 191-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(03)00109-1
Crump, M. J., Brosowsky, N. P., ve Milliken, B. (2017). Reproducing the location-based context-specific proportion congruent effect for frequency unbiased items: A reply to Hutcheon and Spieler (2016). The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(9), 1792-1807. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1206130
Crump, M. J., Gong, Z., ve Milliken, B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 316-321. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193850
Crump, M. J., ve Milliken, B. (2009). The flexibility of context-specific control: Evidence for context-driven generalization of item-specific control settings. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1523-1532. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902752096
Crump, M. J., Vaquero, J. M., ve Milliken, B. (2008). Context-specific learning and control: The roles of awareness, task relevance, and relative salience. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 22-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.01.004
Eriksen, B. A., ve Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143-149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267
Glaser, M. O., ve Glaser, W. R. (1982). Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(6), 875-894. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.8.6.875
Hutcheon, T. (2022). What is cued by faces in the face-based context-specific proportion congruent manipulation? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 84(4), 1248-1263. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-022-02447-w
Hutcheon, T. G., ve Spieler, D. H. (2017). Limits on the generalizability of context-driven control. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(7), 1292-1304. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1182193
Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., ve Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 638-644. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196526
Jiménez-Moya, G., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., ve Lupiáñez, J. (2018). The face-specific proportion congruency effect: social stimuli as contextual cues. Cognitive Processing, 19(4), 537-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-018-0870-9
Kane, M. J., ve Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 132(1), 47-70. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47
King, J. A., Korb, F. M., ve Egner, T. (2012). Priming of control: Implicit contextual cuing of top-down attentional set. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(24), 8192-8200. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0934-12.2012
Lehle, C., ve Hübner, R. (2008). On-the-fly adaptation of selectivity in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(4), 814-818. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.4.814
Lindsay, D. S., ve Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(2), 219-234. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.2.219
Logan, G. D., ve Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7(3), 166-174. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197535
Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J., ve Williamson, J. (1984). Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22(2), 135-138. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333784
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163-203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163
MacLeod, C. M., ve MacDonald, P. A. (2000). Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: Uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(10), 383-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01530-8
Matsumoto, K., ve Tanaka, K. (2004). Conflict and cognitive control. Science, 303(5660), 969-970. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1094733
Posner, M. I., ve Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates
Roelofs, A. (2010). Attention and facilitation: Converging information versus inadvertent reading in Stroop task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(2), 411- 422. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018523
Schmidt, J. R., ve Besner, D. (2008). The Stroop effect: why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(3), 514-523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.514
Schmidt, J. R., ve Lemercier, C. (2019). Context-specific proportion congruent effects: Compound-cue contingency learning in disguise. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(5), 1119-1130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818787155
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651
Van Selst, M., ve Jolicoeur, P. (1994). A solution to the effect of sample size on outlier elimination. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 47(3), 631-650. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749408401131
Vietze, I., ve Wendt, M. (2009). Context specificity of conflict frequency-dependent control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(7), 1391-1400. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210802426908
Weidler, B. J., ve Bugg, J. M. (2016). Transfer of location-specific control to untrained locations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(11), 2202-2217. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1111396
Weidler, B. J., Dey, A., ve Bugg, J. M. (2018). Attentional control transfers beyond the reference frame. Psychological Research, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0984-9
Weidler, B. J., Pratt, J., ve Bugg, J. M. (2022). How is location defined? Implications for learning and transfer of location-specific control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp000098
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Nesne Psikoloji Dergisi