scholarly journals Sequential modulations of stimulus-response correspondence effects depend on awareness of response conflict

2003 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 198-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilfried Kunde
Keyword(s):  
Response Conflict ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Correspondence Effects

Spatio-temporal brain dynamics in a combined stimulus–stimulus and stimulus–response conflict task

NeuroImage ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 622-634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sascha Frühholz ◽  
Ben Godde ◽  
Mareike Finke ◽  
Manfred Herrmann
Keyword(s):  
Response Conflict ◽  
Brain Dynamics ◽  
Conflict Task ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Spatio Temporal

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
Keyword(s):  
Response Conflict ◽  
Conflict Processing ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Spectral Profiles

Flanker and Simon effects interact at the response selection stage

2009 ◽  
Vol 62 (9) ◽  
pp. 1784-1804 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Treccani ◽  
Roberto Cubelli ◽  
Sergio Della Sala ◽  
Carlo Umiltà
Keyword(s):  
Response Selection ◽  
Flanker Task ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Correspondence Effects ◽  
Correspondence Effect ◽  
Accessory Stimulus ◽  
Target Set ◽  
Referential Coding ◽  
Selection Stage ◽  
Effect Experiment

The present study aimed at investigating the processing stage underlying stimulus–stimulus (S–S) congruency effects by examining the relation of a particular type of congruency effect (i.e., the flanker effect) with a stimulus–response (S–R) spatial correspondence effect (i.e., the Simon effect). Experiment 1 used a unilateral flanker task in which the flanker also acted as a Simon-like accessory stimulus. Results showed a significant S–S Congruency × S–R Correspondence interaction: An advantage for flanker–response spatially corresponding trials was observed in target–flanker congruent conditions, whereas, in incongruent conditions, there was a noncorresponding trials’ advantage. The analysis of the temporal trend of the correspondence effects ruled out a temporal-overlap account for the observed interaction. Moreover, results of Experiment 2, in which the flanker did not belong to the target set, demonstrated that this interaction cannot be attributed to perceptual grouping of the target–flanker pairs and referential coding of the target with respect to the flanker in the congruent and incongruent conditions, respectively. Taken together, these findings are consistent with a response selection account of congruency effects: Both the position and the task-related attribute of the flanker would activate the associated responses. In noncorresponding-congruent trials and corresponding-incongruent trials, this would cause a conflict at the response selection stage.

Stimulus-stimulus discrepancy and stimulus-response conflict in Stroop task: an event-related fMRI study

2009 ◽  
Vol 65 ◽  
pp. S239
Author(s):  
Akitoshi Ogawa ◽  
Takeshi Asamizuya ◽  
Ken-ichi Ueno ◽  
Atsushi Iriki
Keyword(s):  
Stroop Task ◽  
Response Conflict ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Fmri Study

Is Direction Position? Position- and Direction-Based Correspondence Effects in Tasks with Moving Stimuli

2005 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 467-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Bosbach ◽  
Wolfgang Prinz ◽  
Dirk Kerzel
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Relative Position ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Object Motion ◽  
Spatial Coding ◽  
Motion Direction ◽  
Directional Information ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Starting Position ◽  
Correspondence Effects

Five experiments were carried out to test whether (task-irrelevant) motion information provided by a stimulus changing its position over time would affect manual left–right responses. So far, some studies reported direction-based Simon effects whereas others did not. In Experiment 1a, a reliable direction-based effect occurred, which was not modulated by the response mode—that is, by whether participants responded by pressing one of two keys or more dynamically by moving a stylus in a certain direction. Experiments 1a, 1b, and 2 lend support to the idea that observers use the starting position of target motion as a reference for spatial coding. That is, observers might process object motion as a shift of position relative to the starting position and not as directional information. The dominance of relative position coding could also be shown in Experiment 3, in which relative position was pitted against motion direction by presenting a static and dynamic stimulus at the same time. Additionally, we explored the role of eye movements in stimulus–response compatibility and showed in Experiments 1b and 3a that the execution or preparation of saccadic eye movements—as proposed by an attention-shifting account—is not necessary for a Simon effect to occur.

Context Modulates Early Stimulus Processing when Resolving Stimulus-response Conflict

2006 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 781-792 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaia Scerif ◽  
Michael S. Worden ◽  
Matthew Davidson ◽  
Liat Seiger ◽  
B. J. Casey
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Attention ◽  
Target Location ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Response Competition ◽  
Contextual Effects ◽  
Response Conflict ◽  
Stimulus Processing ◽  
Specific Stimulus ◽  
Central Target ◽  
Stimulus Response

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.

scholarly journals It's the Other Way Around! Early Modulation of Sensory Distractor Processing Induced by Late Response Conflict

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 985-998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Pastötter ◽  
Christian Frings
Keyword(s):  
Attentional Control ◽  
Flanker Task ◽  
Action Planning ◽  
Response Conflict ◽  
Late Response ◽  
Theta Power ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Distractor Processing ◽  
Theory Of Event Coding ◽  
Lateralization Effect

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.

Interference suppression in bilingualism: Stimulus-Stimulus vs. Stimulus-Response conflict

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Lihua Xia ◽  
Thomas H. Bak ◽  
Antonella Sorace ◽  
Mariana Vega-Mendoza
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Control ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Interference Suppression ◽  
Response Conflict ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Specific Effects ◽  
Visual Orienting ◽  
Adult Participants ◽  
Comparable Performance

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.

scholarly journals Lifespan development of stimulus-response conflict cost: similarities and differences between maturation and senescence

2008 ◽  
Vol 73 (6) ◽  
pp. 777-785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shu-Chen Li ◽  
Dorothea Hämmerer ◽  
Viktor Müller ◽  
Bernhard Hommel ◽  
Ulman Lindenberger
Keyword(s):  
Response Conflict ◽  
Lifespan Development ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Conflict Cost ◽  
Similarities And Differences
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document