Abstract

Abstract. Subjects usually respond faster and more accurate in trials in which the response location corresponds to a task-irrelevant stimulus location compared to when not. Previous research has shown, that this so-called Simon effect is reduced after non-corresponding compared to after corresponding trials. As of now it is yet unclear what exact mechanisms drive such sequential modulations. One theory assumes a conflict adaptation mechanism that decreases the influence of incongruent information after non-corresponding trials via increased cognitive control. However, other authors claim that feature integration processes may be the underlying mechanism as the amount of feature overlap differs between different correspondence sequences. Unfortunately, this also means that in the standard Simon task the repetition of task features and correspondence sequences are not independent. In order to address this issue, we mapped four stimuli to two responses in the present EEG study. This way, we created a task, which allows for sequences in which the stimulus identity may change without alternating the required response. These sequences may either comprise a change of the stimulus position or not and the contribution of feature integration as well as conflict adaptation processes could thus be observed independently. Our results indicate that the repetition of task features affects performance to a stronger degree than the correspondence sequence and feature integration processes do. Yet, an impact of both could still be observed. The strongest effect of feature repetitions on task performance was observed for task-relevant features, especially for the imperative stimulus identity itself. The EEG results support these findings. The amplitudes of the fronto-central N2 and the parietal P3 decreased with increasing feature overlap from one trial to the next. The posterior lateralization, reflected by the posterior contralateral negativity (PCN), however, appears to reflect mainly changes in the stimulus location and stimulus–response (S–R) correspondence rather than feature repetitions per se.

Full Text
Paper version not known

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

Disclaimer: 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.