The Effectiveness of Cue Relevance and Saliency in the Context-Specific Proportion Congruent Effect

• Authors: Blandyna Żurawska vel Grajewska
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The context-specific proportion congruent (CSPC) effect can be observed when within a block of trials two different ratios congruent-to-incongruent trials are assigned to different variants of stimulus feature (like location or colour). This feature is a contextual cue. CSPC effect is present when congruency effect size is differentiated according to the ratio congruent-to-incongruent trials assigned to specific stimulation parts. In the present paper the relevance and saliency of contextual cues in variants of the flanker task were systematically manipulated, by varying background colour, stimulus colour and luminance, and target-arrow direction as contextual cues. The obtained results support the claim that task-relevancy of the contextual cue is a critical factor in predicting its effectiveness (no CSPC effect for task-irrelevant background, stimuli colour or luminance, and significant CSPC effect for task-relevant target-arrow direction).

Keywords

EN

conflict; proportion congruent; cognitive control; relevancy

• Publisher: Committee for Psychological Sciences, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Journal: Polish Psychological Bulletin
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 45
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 380-391

Dates

published

2014-09-01

online

2014-09-09

Contributors

author

Blandyna Żurawska vel Grajewska

• Faculty of Psychology, University of Finance and Management in Warsaw, Pawia 55; PL-01-030 Warsaw, Poland;

References

• Bartholow, B. D., Pearson, M., Sher, K. J., Wieman, L. C., Fabiani, M. & Gratton, G. (2003). Effects of alcohol consumption and alcohol susceptibility on cognition: a psychophysiological examination. Biological Psychology, 64, 167-190.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Bélanger, S., Belleville, S. & Gauthier, S. (2010). Inhibition impairments in Alzheimer’s disease, mild cognitive impairment and healthy aging: effect of congruency proportion in a Stroop task. Neuropsychologia, 48, 518-590.[WoS]
• Botvinick, M. M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S. & Cohen J.D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature, 402, 179-181.
• Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L. & Toth, J. P. (2008). Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory and Cognition, 36, 1484-1494.[Crossref][PubMed][WoS]
• Buswell, G.T. (1935). How People Look at Pictures. Chicago: Univ.
• Chicago Press Carter, C. S., MacDonald, A. M., Botvinick, M. M., Ross, L. L., Stegner, V. A. & Noll, D. (2000). Parsing executive processes: strategic vs. evaluative functions of the anterior cingulate cortex. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences U.S.A., 97, 1944-1948.
• Casey, B. J., Thomas, K. M., Welsh, T. F., Badgaiyan, R. D., Eccard, C. H., Jennings, J. R. & Crone, E. A. (2000). Dissociation of response conflict, attentional selection, and expectancy with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences U.S.A., 97, 8728-8733.
• Corballis, P. M. & Gratton, G. (2003). Independent control of processing strategies for different locations in the visual field. Biological Psychology, 64, 191-209.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Crump, M. J. C., Gong, Z. & Milliken, B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 316-321.[PubMed][Crossref]
• Crump, M. J. C. & Milliken, B. (2009). The flexibility of context-specific control: evidence for context-driven generalization of item-specific control settings. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1523-1532.[WoS][Crossref]
• Crump, M. J. C., Vaquerro, J. M. & Milliken, B. (2008). Context-specific learning and control: the roles of awareness, task relevance, and relative salience. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 22-36.[Crossref][WoS]
• Eriksen, B. A. & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 155-160.
• Fernandez-Duque, D. & Knight, M. B. (2008). Cognitive control: dynamic, sustained, and voluntary influences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 340-355.[WoS][Crossref]
• Folk, C. L., Leber, A. B. & Egeth, H. E. (2002). Made you blink! Contingent attentional capture produces a spatial blink. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 741-753.[Crossref]
• Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W. & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1030-1044.[Crossref][WoS]
• Funes, M. J., Lupiánez, J. & Humphreys, G. (2010). Sustained vs. transient cognitive control: evidence of a behavioral dissociation. Cognition, 114, 338-347.[WoS]
• Gratton, E., Coles, M. G. H. & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing of the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480-506.
• Hantsch, A., Jescheniak, J. D. & Schriefers, H. (2009). Distractor modality can turn semantic interference into semantic facilitation in the pictureword interference task: implications for theories of lexical access in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1443-1453.[WoS]
• Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261-268.
• Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S. & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 638-644.[Crossref][PubMed]
• Johnson, D. N. & Yantis, S. (1995). Allocating visual attention: tests of a two-process model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 1376-1390.[Crossref][WoS]
• Kane, M. J. & 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, 47-70.
• Lavie, N., Hirst, A., de Fockert, J. W. & Viding, E. (2004). Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 339-354.
• Lehle, C. & Hübner, R. (2008). On-the-fly adaptation of selectivity in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 814-818.[Crossref][WoS][PubMed]
• Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 523-553.[PubMed][Crossref]
• Logan, G. D. & 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, 166-174.[Crossref]
• Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. New York: Freeman.
• Mattler, U. (2006). Distance and ratio effects in the flanker task are due to different mechanisms. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1745-1763.
• Merikle, P. M. & Joordens, S. (1997). Parallels between perception without attention and perception without awareness. Consciousness and Cognition, 6, 219-236.[Crossref][WoS]
• Navon, D. & Kasten, R. (2008). Incidental learning of secondary attentional cueing. Acta Psychologica, 127, 459-475.[WoS]
• Simon, J. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 31-86). Elsevier Science Publishers.
• Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 18, 662.
• Stürmer, B., Leuthold, H., Soetens, E., Schröter, H. & Sommer, W. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 1345-1363.[Crossref]
• Theeuwes, J. & Kooi, F. L. (1994). Parallel search for a conjunction of contrast polarity and shape. Vision Research, 34, 3013-3016.[PubMed][Crossref]
• Toth, J. P., Levine, B., Stuss, D. T. & Oh, A. (1995). Dissociation of processes underlying spatial S-R compatibility: Evidence for the independent influence of what and where. Consciousness and Cognition, 4, 483-501.[Crossref]
• Vietze, I. & Wendt, M. (2009). Context specifity of conflict frequencydependent control. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1391-1400.[WoS][Crossref]
• Wendt, M., Kluwe, R. H. & Vietze, I. (2008). Location-specific versus hemisphere-specific adaptation of processing selectivity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 135-140.[PubMed][WoS][Crossref]
• Żurawska vel Grajewska, B., Sim, E.-J., Hönig, K., Herrnberger, B. & Kiefer, M. (2011). Mechanisms underlying flexible adaptation of cognitive control: Behavioral and neuroimaging evidence in a flanker task. Brain Research, 1421, 52-65 [WoS]

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/ppb-2014-0046