Abstract
Stimulus-Response conflict is generated by an overlap between stimulus and response dimensions, but the intrinsic nature of this interaction is not yet deeply clarified. In this study, using a modified Eriksen flanker task, we have investigated how flankers have to be incongruent to target in order to produce an interference and whether and how this interference interacts with the one produced by Stimulus features overlap. To these aims, an Eriksen-like task employing oriented hands\\arrows has been designed to distinguish between two types of Stimulus-Response (S-R) interferences: one derived by a short-term association and one based on automatic processes. Stimulus-Stimulus (S-S) conflict has been also included in the same factorial design. Behavioral, Event Related Potential (ERP) and oscillatory activity data have been measured. Results revealed distinct S-S and automatic S-R effects on behavioral performance. ERP and Theta band power modulation results suggested an early frontal S-S conflict processing followed by a posterior simultaneous S-S and automatic S-R conflict processing. These findings provide evidence that, in presence of different conflicts, the sequence of stimulus identification and response selection could not move forward in a linear serial direction, but it may involve further effort, mirrored in posterior late components and response time prolongation.
Highlights
In the last three decades, several studies have been conducted into the frame of cognitive control to investigate the dynamic of conflict monitoring
We aimed at distinguishing between the impact exerted by a short-term should lead to response competition (S-R) association interference and one based on automatic processes on target response
The manipulation that we made allowed us to include in the same factorial design these two kinds of S-R conflicts and a S-S conflict condition, in order to investigate their potential mutual interaction
Summary
In the last three decades, several studies have been conducted into the frame of cognitive control to investigate the dynamic of conflict monitoring. An exhaustive investigation of this problem should consider the nature of the stimulus used, that could automatically activate a response or, require voluntary recall of short-term memory information. In this frame, several standard and modified versions of well-known tasks (e.g. Stroop and Simon tasks) have been used to investigate Stimulus-Stimulus and Stimulus-Response interaction. Reaction time (RT) is faster when the central and the flanking letters are mapped to the same answer key rather than when the answer keys are different This 2-1 mapping (two stimuli mapped to the same response) allowed to manipulate both S-S www.nature.com/scientificreports/. An ad-hoc manipulation is required to verify the independent or interactive nature of these processes
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.
