CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 99Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismFree Will and Agency

Conflict resolution in the Eriksen flanker task: Similarities and differences to the Simon task

Open access
Hübner, Ronald, Töbel, Lisa·2019·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0214203PMC PMC6438467
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In the Eriksen flanker task as well as in the Simon task irrelevant activation produces a response conflict that has to be resolved by mental control mechanisms. Despite these similarities, however, the tasks differ with respect to their delta functions, which express how the congruency effects develop with response time. The slope of the delta function is mostly positive for the flanker task, but negative for the Simon task. Much effort has been spent to explain this difference and to investigate whether it results from task-specific control. A prominent account is that the temporal overlap between irrelevant and relevant response activation is larger in the flanker task than in the Simon task. To test this hypothesis, we increased the temporal distance in a flanker task by presenting the flankers ahead of the target. This not only produced negatively sloped delta functions but also caused reversed congruency effects. We also conducted a Simon-task experiment in which we varied the proportion of congruent stimuli. As a result, the delta function was negatively sloped only if the proportion was low. These results demonstrate that a long temporal distance is necessary but not sufficient for observing negatively sloped delta functions. Finally, we modeled the data with drift-diffusion models. Together, our results show that differently sloped delta functions can be produced with both tasks. They further indicate that activation suppression is an important control mechanism that can be adapted rather flexibly to the control demands.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0214203

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. [1]Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1935; 18: 643– 62.
  2. [2]Steinhauser M, Hübner R. Distinguishing Response Conflict and Task Conflict in the Stroop Task: Evidence From Ex-Gaussian Distribution Analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2009; 35(5): 1398– 412. 19803645
  3. [3]Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics. 1974; 16(1): 143– 9.
  4. [4]Hübner R, Steinhauser M, Lehle C. A dual-stage two-phase model of selective attention. Psychological Review. 2010; 117(3): 759– 84. 20658852
  5. [5]Simon JR. Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1969; 81(1): 174– 6. 5812172
  6. [6]Proctor RW. Playing the Simon game: use of the Simon task for investigating human information processing. Acta Psychologica. 2011; 136(2): 182– 8. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.06.010 20663486 · DOI
  7. [7]Hübner R, Mishra S. Evidence for strategic suppression of irrelevant activation in the Simon task. Acta Psychologica. 2013; 144(1): 166– 72. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.05.012 23831497 · DOI
  8. [8]van den Wildenberg WPM, Wylie SA, Forstmann BU, Burle B, Hasbroucq T, Ridderinkhof KR. To head or to heed? Beyond the surface of selective action inhibition: a review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2010; 4(December): 222 10.3389/fnhum.2010.00222 21179583 PMC3004391 · DOI
  9. [9]Pratte MS, Rouder JN, Morey RD, Feng C. Exploring the differences in distributional properties between Stroop and Simon effects using delta plots. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. 2010; 72(7): 2013– 25. 20952797
  10. [10]Ridderinkhof KR. Activation and suppression in conflict tasks: Empirical clarification through distributional analyses In: Prinz W, Hommel B, editors. Common Mechanisms in Perception and Action Attention & Performance, Vol XIX Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002 p. 494– 519.
  11. [12]Gratton G, Coles MG, Donchin E. Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 1992; 121(4): 480– 506.. 1431740
  12. [13]Mansfield KL, van der Molen MW, Falkenstein M, van Boxtel GJ. Temporal dynamics of interference in Simon and Eriksen tasks considered within the context of a dual-process model. Brain and Cognition. 2013; 82(3): 353– 63. 10.1016/j.bandc.2013.06.001 23856129 · DOI · Paper page
  13. [14]Burle B, Spieser L, Servant M, Hasbroucq T. Distributional reaction time properties in the Eriksen task: marked differences or hidden similarities with the Simon task? Psychon Bull Rev. 2014; 21: 1003– 10. 10.3758/s13423-013-0561-6 24302468 PMC4104006 · DOI
  14. [15]Ulrich R, Schröter H, Leuthold H, Birngruber T. Automatic and controlled stimulus processing in conflict tasks: Superimposed diffusion processes and delta functions. Cognitive psychology. 2015; 78: 148– 74. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.02.005 25909766 · DOI
  15. [16]Hommel B. The relationship between stimulus processing and response selection in the Simon task: Evidence for a temporal overlap. Psychological Research. 1993; 55: 280– 90.
  16. [18]Baroni G, Pellicano A, Lugli L, Nicoletti R, Proctor RW. Influence of temporal overlap on time course of the Simon effect. Experimental Psychology. 2012; 59(2): 88– 98. 22044788
  17. [19]Burle B, Wildenberg van den WPM, Ridderinkhof KR. Dynamics of facilitation and interference in cue-priming and Simon tasks. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2005; 17(5): 619– 41.
  18. [20]Hommel B. Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research. 1994; 56(4): 261– 8. 8090861
  19. [21]Ridderinkhof KR. Micro- and macro-adjustments of task set: Activation and suppression in conflict tasks. Psychological Research. 2002; 66: 312– 23. 10.1007/s00426-002-0104-7 12466928 · DOI
  20. [22]Eriksen CW. The flankers task and response competition: A useful tool for investigating a variaty of cognitive problems. Visual Cognition. 1995; 2: 101– 18.
  21. [23]Gratton G, Coles MGH, Sirevaag EJ, Eriksen CW, Donchin E. Pre- and poststimulus activation of response channels: A psychophysiological analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1988; 14: 331– 44. 2971764
  22. [24]Flowers JH. Response priming effects in a digit naming task as a function of target-noise separation. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 1980; 16(6): 443– 6.
  23. [25]Eriksen CW, Schultz DW. Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results. Perception & Psychophysics. 1979; 25(4): 249– 63. 461085
  24. [26]Wendt M, Kiesel A, Geringswald F, Purmann S, Fischer R. Attentional adjustment to conflict strength: evidence from the effects of manipulating flanker-target SOA on response times and prestimulus pupil size. Experimental Psychology. 2014; 61(1): 55 10.1027/1618-3169/a000227 24149239 · DOI
  25. [27]Mattler U. Delayed flanker effects on lateralized readiness potentials. Experimental Brain Research. 2003; 151(2): 272– 88. 10.1007/s00221-003-1486-5 12739092 · DOI
  26. [28]Flowers JH, Wilcox N. The effect of flanking context on visual classification: The joint contribution of interactions at different processing levels. Perception & Psychophysics. 1982; 32(6): 581– 91. 7167358
  27. [29]Greiner B. Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association. 2015; 1(1): 114– 25. 10.1007/s40881-015-0004-4 · DOI
  28. [31]Ratcliff R. Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. Psychological Bulletin. 1979; 86(3): 446– 61. 451109
  29. [32]Hübner R, Töbel L. Does attentional selectivity in the flanker task improve discretely or gradually?. Frontiers in Psychology. 2012; 3: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00434 23112779 PMC3481116 · DOI
  30. [33]White CN, Ratcliff R, Starns JJ. Diffusion models of the flanker task: Discrete versus gradual attentional selection. Cognitive Psychology. 2011; 63: 210– 38. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.08.001. 21964663 PMC3195995 · DOI
  31. [34]Servant M, Montagnini A, Burle B. Conflict tasks and the diffusion framework: Insight in model constraints based on psychological laws. Cognitive Psychology. 2014; 72: 162– 95. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.03.002 24762975 · DOI
  32. [35]Hübner R. Does attentional selectivity in global/local processing improve discretely or gradually? Frontiers in Psychology. 2014; 5: 61 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00061 24550875 PMC3909920 · DOI
  33. [36]White CN, Servant M, Logan GD. Testing the validity of conflict drift-diffusion models for use in estimating cognitive processes: A parameter-recovery study. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018; 25: 286– 301. 10.3758/s13423-017-1271-2 28357629 PMC5788738 · DOI
  34. [37]Ratcliff R. A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review. 1978; 85: 59– 108.
  35. [40]Gegenfurtner KR. PRAXIS: Brent’s algorithm for function minimization. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers. 1992; 24: 560– 4.
  36. [42]Ratcliff R, Smith PL. A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review. 2004; 111: 333– 67. 15065913 PMC1440925
  37. [43]Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics. 1978; 6: 461– 4.
  38. [44]Tipper SP. The negative priming effect: Inhibitory effects of ignored primes. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1985; 37A: 571– 90. 4081101
  39. [45]Frings C, Schneider KK, Fox E. The negative priming paradigm: An update and implications for selective attention. Psychon Bull Rev. 2015; 22(6): 1577– 97. 10.3758/s13423-015-0841-4 25917144 · DOI
  40. [46]Neill WT, Kleinsmith AL. Spatial negative priming: Location or response? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics. 2016; 78(8): 2411– 9. 27465862
  41. [47]D’Angelo MC, Thomson DR, Tipper SP, Milliken B. Negative priming 1985 to 2015: a measure of inhibition, the emergence of alternative accounts, and the multiple process challenge. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2016; 69(10): 1890– 909. 10.1080/17470218.2016.1173077 27065048 · DOI
  42. [48]Machado L, Guiney H, Struthers P. Identity-based inhibitory processing during focused attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2013; 66(1): 138– 59. 10.1080/17470218.2012.701651 22928521 · DOI
  43. [49]Hübner R, Lehle C. Strategies of flanker co-processing in single and dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2007; 33: 103– 23. 10.1037/0096-1523.33.1.103 17311482 · DOI
  44. [50]Panis S, Schmidt T. What is shaping RT and accuracy distributions? Active and selective response inhibition causes the negative compatibility effect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2016. 27315271
  45. [51]Sumner P. Negative and positive masked-priming–implications for motor inhibition. Advances in Cognitive Psychology. 2007; 3(1–2): 317– 26. PMC2864966 20517517
  46. [52]Hasegawa K, Takahashi Sy. Functional difference between sustained and transient modulations of cognitive control in the Simon Task: Evidence from false alarm responses on no-go trials. PLoS One. 2013; 8(11): e81804 10.1371/journal.pone.0081804 24303072 PMC3841129 · DOI
  47. [53]Stürmer B, Leuthold H, Soetens E, Schröter H, Sommer W. Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2002; 28(6): 1345– 63. 12542132
  48. [54]Toth JP, Levine B, Stuss DT, Oh A, Winocur G, Meiran N. Dissociation of processes underlying spatial SR compatibility: Evidence for the independent influence of what and where. Consciousness and cognition. 1995; 4(4): 483– 501. 10.1006/ccog.1995.1052 8750420 · DOI
  49. [55]Torres-Quesada M, Funes MJ, Lupiáñez J. Dissociating proportion congruent and conflict adaptation effects in a Simon–Stroop procedure. Acta psychologica. 2014; 142(2): 203– 10. 23337083
  50. [56]Töbel L, Hübner R, Stürmer B. Suppression of irrelevant activation in the horizontal and vertical Simon task differs quantitatively not qualitatively. Acta Psychologica. 2014; 152(0): 47– 55. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.07.007 25113126 · DOI
  51. [57]Akçay Ç, Hazeltine E. Conflict monitoring and feature overlap: Two sources of sequential modulations. Psychon Bull Rev. 2007; 14(4): 742– 8. 17972743
  52. [58]Taylor DA. Time course of context effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 1977; 106(4): 404.
  53. [59]Proctor RW, Miles JD, Baroni G. Reaction time distribution analysis of spatial correspondence effects. Psychon Bull Rev. 2011; 18: 242– 66. 10.3758/s13423-011-0053-5 21327376 · DOI
  54. [61]Schwarz W, Miller J. Response time models of delta plots with negative-going slopes. Psychon Bull Rev. 2012; 19(4): 555– 74. 10.3758/s13423-012-0254-6 22610358 · DOI
  55. [62]Jost K, Wendt M, Luna-Rodriguez A, Löw A, Jacobsen T. Strategic control over extent and timing of distractor-based response activation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2017; 43(2): 326 27732019
  56. [63]Gehring WJ, Gratton G, Coles MGH, Donchin E. Probability effects on stimulus evaluation and response processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1992; 18: 198– 216. 1532188

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hübner, R., & Töbel, L.
Affiliations
University of Konstanz (DE)
Corresponding author
Hübner, Ronald
ORCID
Hübner, Ronald
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2019-03-28
Volume
14
Issue
3
Pages
e0214203
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0214203
PMC
PMC6438467
OpenAlex
W2931264320
Cited by
99
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 2
FWCI
6.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Free Will and Agency
Keywords
flanker task, Simon task, response conflict, conflict resolution, Dirac delta function, congruency effect, temporal distance, drift-diffusion model, reaction time (psychology)
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Conflict, Psychological, Female, Humans, Male, Psychomotor Performance, Negotiating

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review