The neutral condition in conflict tasks: On the violation of the midpoint assumption in reaction time trends.

Abstract

Although the relation between congruent and incongruent conditions in conflict tasks has been the primary focus of cognitive control studies, the neutral condition is often set as a baseline directly between the two conditions. However, empirical evidence suggests that the average neutral reaction time (RT) is not placed evenly between the two opposing conditions. This article set out to establish two things: First, to reinforce the informative nature of the neutral condition and second, to highlight how it can be useful for modelling. We explored how RT in the neutral condition of conflict tasks (Stroop, Flanker, and Simon Tasks) deviated from the predictions of current diffusion models. Current diffusion models of conflict tasks predict a neutral RT that is the average of the congruent and incongruent RT, called the midpoint assumption. To investigate this, we first conducted a cursory limited search that recorded the average RT's of conflict tasks with neutral conditions. Upon finding evidence of a midpoint assumption violation which showed a larger disparity between average neutral and incongruent RT, we tested the previously mentioned conflict tasks with two different sets of stimuli to establish the robustness of the effect. The midpoint assumption violation is sometimes inconsistent with the prediction of diffusion models of conflict processing (e.g., the Diffusion Model of Conflict), suggesting possible elaborations of such models.