Abstract
Congruency effects in distracter interference tasks are often smaller after incongruent trials than after congruent trials. However, the sources of such congruency sequence effects (CSEs) are controversial. The conflict monitoring model of cognitive control links CSEs to the detection and resolution of response conflict. In contrast, competing theories attribute CSEs to attentional or affective processes that vary with previous-trial congruency (incongruent vs. congruent). The present study sought to distinguish between conflict monitoring and congruency-based accounts of CSEs. To this end, we determined whether CSEs are driven by previous-trial reaction time (RT)—a putative measure of response conflict—or by previous-trial congruency. In two experiments using a face-word Stroop task (n = 49), we found that current-trial congruency effects did not vary with previous-trial RT independent of previous-trial congruency. In contrast, current-trial congruency effects were influenced by previous-trial congruency independent of previous-trial RT. These findings appear more consistent with theories that attribute CSEs to non-conflict processes whose recruitment varies with previous-trial congruency than with theories that link CSEs to previous-trial response conflict.
Highlights
First observed in a flanker task two decades ago (Gratton et al, 1992), congruency sequence effects (CSEs) refer to smaller congruency effects after incongruent trials than after congruent trials in distracter interference tasks
The conflict monitoring model predicts an influence of previoustrial reaction time (RT) on current-trial congruency effects that is independent of previous-trial congruency
GENERAL DISCUSSION The present study sought to distinguish between the conflict monitoring model and congruency-based accounts of CSEs
Summary
First observed in a flanker task two decades ago (Gratton et al, 1992), congruency sequence effects (CSEs) refer to smaller congruency effects after incongruent trials than after congruent trials in distracter interference tasks. The conflict monitoring model posits that CSEs stem from variations of previous-trial response conflict (i.e., the simultaneous activation of competing responses) (Botvinick et al, 2001; Yeung et al, 2004). The model posits that heightened response conflict in the previous trial triggers increased attention to task-relevant stimuli and responses in the current trial. The model posits that reaction time (RT) is a more direct index of response conflict than congruency because “conflict more closely tracks RT than congruence condition when the two are dissociated” As explained by Yeung et al (2011)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
