Temporal and spectral profiles of stimulus–stimulus and stimulus–response conflict processing

NeuroImage ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 89 ◽  
pp. 280-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Wang ◽  
Qi Li ◽  
Ya Zheng ◽  
Hongbin Wang ◽  
Xun Liu
Author(s):  
Thomas Kleinsorge

This article reviews the historical usage of the concept of ‘conflict’ in psychology and delineates the design and development of three basic conflict tasks (Stroop, Flanker, Stop Signal). Afterwards, important theoretical concepts to account for conflict processing are introduced. In the second part, the usage of these tasks in clinical psychology is considered. The article closes with some reflections regarding factors that may have been hitherto largely neglected in this respect.


NeuroImage ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 622-634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sascha Frühholz ◽  
Ben Godde ◽  
Mareike Finke ◽  
Manfred Herrmann

2009 ◽  
Vol 65 ◽  
pp. S239
Author(s):  
Akitoshi Ogawa ◽  
Takeshi Asamizuya ◽  
Ken-ichi Ueno ◽  
Atsushi Iriki

2006 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 781-792 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaia Scerif ◽  
Michael S. Worden ◽  
Matthew Davidson ◽  
Liat Seiger ◽  
B. J. Casey

When responding to stimuli in our environment, the presence of multiple items associated with task-relevant responses affects both ongoing response selection and subsequent behavior. Computational modeling of conflict monitoring and neuroimaging data predict that the recent context of response competition will bias the selection of certain stimuli over others very early in the processing stream through increased focal spatial attention. We used high-density EEG to test this hypothesis and to investigate the contextual effects on nonspatial, early stimulus processing in a modified flanker task. Subjects were required to respond to a central arrow and to ignore potentially conflicting information from flanking arrows in trials preceded by a series of either compatible or incompatible trials. On some trials, we presented the flanking arrows in the absence of the central target. The visual P1 component was selectively enhanced only for incompatible trials when preceded by incompatible ones, suggesting that contextual effects depend on feature-based processing, and not only simple enhancement of the target location. Context effects also occurred on no-target trials as evidenced by an enhanced early-evoked response when they followed compatible compared to incompatible trials, suggesting that spatial attention was also modulated by recent context. These results support a multi-componential account of spatial and nonspatial attention and they suggest that contextually driven cognitive control mechanisms can operate on specific stimulus features at extremely early stages of processing within stimulus-response conflict tasks.


2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 985-998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Pastötter ◽  
Christian Frings

Understanding the neural processes that maintain goal-directed behavior is a major challenge for the study of attentional control. Although much of the previous work on the issue has focused on prefrontal brain areas, little is known about the contribution of sensory brain processes to the regulation of attentional control. The present EEG study examined brain oscillatory activities invoked in the processing of response conflict in a lateralized Eriksen single-flanker task, in which target letters were presented at fixation and single distractor letters were presented either left or right to the targets. Distractors were response compatible, response incompatible, or neutral in relation to the responses associated with the targets. The behavioral results showed that responses to targets in incompatible trials were slower and more error prone than responses in compatible trials. The electrophysiological results revealed an early sensory lateralization effect in (both evoked and induced) theta power (3–6 Hz) that was more pronounced in incompatible than compatible trials. The sensory lateralization effect preceded in time a midfrontal conflict effect that was indexed by an increase of (induced) theta power (6–9 Hz) in incompatible compared with compatible trials. The findings indicate an early modulation of sensory distractor processing induced by response conflict. Theoretical implications of the findings, in particular with respect to the theory of event coding and theories relating to stimulus–response binding [Henson, R. N., Eckstein, D., Waszak, F., Frings, C., & Horner, A. Stimulus-response bindings in priming. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 376–384, 2014; Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878, 2001], are discussed.


Author(s):  
Lihua Xia ◽  
Thomas H. Bak ◽  
Antonella Sorace ◽  
Mariana Vega-Mendoza

Abstract Studies examining the potential effects of bilingualism on interference suppression show inconsistent results. Our study approaches this topic by distinguishing two potential subcomponents within interference suppression (i.e., Stimulus-Stimulus and Stimulus-Response conflict). We investigated the two subcomponents through their operationalisation in different tasks and examined the role of language proficiency in modulating it. A sample of 111 young adult participants performed four non-linguistic cognitive tasks measuring both visual and auditory domains of cognitive control. Bilinguals outperformed monolinguals in tasks involving Stimulus-Stimulus conflict, but showed comparable performance in tasks involving Stimulus-Response conflict. Specific effects of language proficiency on cognitive control were observed: group differences in auditory inhibition and visual orienting were only observed between high-proficient bilinguals and monolinguals. Taken together, types of conflicts involved in interference tasks and language proficiency could differentially affect performance in monolinguals and bilinguals.


2008 ◽  
Vol 73 (6) ◽  
pp. 777-785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shu-Chen Li ◽  
Dorothea Hämmerer ◽  
Viktor Müller ◽  
Bernhard Hommel ◽  
Ulman Lindenberger

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document