Abstract

In the Stroop task, participants identify the print color of color words. The congruency effect is the observation that response times and errors are increased when the word and color are incongruent (e.g., the word “red” in green ink) relative to when they are congruent (e.g., “red” in red). The proportion congruent (PC) effect is the finding that congruency effects are reduced when trials are mostly incongruent rather than mostly congruent. This PC effect can be context-specific. For instance, if trials are mostly incongruent when presented in one location and mostly congruent when presented in another location, the congruency effect is smaller for the former location. Typically, PC effects are interpreted in terms of strategic control of attention in response to conflict, termed conflict adaptation or conflict monitoring. In the present manuscript, however, an episodic learning account is presented for context-specific proportion congruent (CSPC) effects. In particular, it is argued that context-specific contingency learning can explain part of the effect, and context-specific rhythmic responding can explain the rest. Both contingency-based and temporal-based learning can parsimoniously be conceptualized within an episodic learning framework. An adaptation of the Parallel Episodic Processing model is presented. This model successfully simulates CSPC effects, both for contingency-biased and contingency-unbiased (transfer) items. The same fixed-parameter model can explain a range of other findings from the learning, timing, binding, practice, and attentional control domains.

Highlights

  • One of the main areas of interest in experimental psychology is how the cognitive system controls attention to maximize task performance (Treisman and Gelade, 1980; Miller and Cohen, 2001; Petersen and Posner, 2012)

  • The present series of simulations demonstrated the proofof-principle that location-based context-specific proportion congruent (CSPC) effects can result from context-specific contingency and temporal learning

  • Even CSPC effects for contingency-unbiased diagnostic items can be explained by this episodic learning model

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

One of the main areas of interest in experimental psychology is how the cognitive system controls attention to maximize task performance (Treisman and Gelade, 1980; Miller and Cohen, 2001; Petersen and Posner, 2012). The dynamically adjusting threshold in the Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP) model does not produce a speed-accuracy trade-off in PC (or congruency sequence) effects, but instead produces the same pattern in errors as in response times (Schmidt, 2013c; Schmidt and Weissman, 2016), just as in the participant data This is because the threshold is fixed, only temporarily dipping early in the mostly congruent condition (benefitting congruent, but increasing fast incongruent errors) and the reverse in the mostly incongruent condition. Contingency learning may account for (part) of the CSPC effect, because the word and location combined do strongly predict the color response. Participants might be learning a different pace for each contextual location In support of this notion, Schmidt et al (2014) have already demonstrated that a CSPC-like interaction can be observed in a non-conflict task. In the simulations to follow, it will be demonstrated how the PEP model is able to simulate CSPC effects, including for contingency-unbiased diagnostic items, using only contingency and temporal learning mechanisms

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Simulation Procedure and Data Analysis
Findings
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call