CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 127

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evidence against conflict monitoring and adaptation: An updated review

Schmidt, James R.·2019·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
DOI 10.3758/s13423-018-1520-z
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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 · 10.3758/s13423-018-1520-z

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Repeated stressors during the stress-hyperresponsive period produce long-lasting effects on the hippocampal regulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis, which is associated with increased responsiveness to stress stimuli in adulthood.

    “Repeated stressors during the stress-hyperresponsive period produce long-lasting effects on the hippocampal regulation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical axis, which is associated with increased responsiveness to stress stimuli in adulthood [82].”

    From Therapy Dog Welfare Revisited: A Review of the Literature (2021) · cites this paper as [82]

  • Puppies are not socially, neurologically, or developmentally mature enough to participate in any AAI setting as they have not yet developed strategies to react to stressful situations.

    “Therefore, puppies are not socially, neurologically, or developmentally mature enough to participate in any AAI setting as they have not yet developed strategies to react to stressful situations [82].”

    From Therapy Dog Welfare Revisited: A Review of the Literature (2021) · cites this paper as [82]

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 154

  1. Abrahamse, E., Braem, S., Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2016). Grounding cognitive control in associative learning. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 693–728. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Abrahamse, E. L., Duthoo, W., Notebaert, W., & Risko, E. F. (2013). Attention modulation by proportion congruency: The asymmetrical list shifting effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1552–1562.
  3. Akcay, C., & Hazeltine, E. (2011). Domain-specific conflict adaptation without feature repetitions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 505–511. · DOI
  4. Badre, D., Kayser, A. S., & D’Esposito, M. (2010). Frontal cortex and the discovery of abstract action rules. Neuron, 66, 315–326. · DOI
  5. Blais, C., & Bunge, S. (2010). Behavioral and neural evidence for item-specific performance monitoring. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2758–2767. · DOI
  6. Blais, C., Robidoux, S., Risko, E. F., & Besner, D. (2007). Item-specific adaptation and the conflict-monitoring hypothesis: A computational model. Psychological Review, 114, 1076–1086. · DOI
  7. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychologcal Review, 108, 624–652. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: An update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 539–546. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Bugg, J. M. (2014). Conflict-triggered top-down control: Default mode, last resort, or no such thing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 567–587.
  10. Bugg, J. M. (2015). The relative attractiveness of distractors and targets affects the coming and going of item-specific control: Evidence from flanker tasks. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77, 373–389. · DOI
  11. Bugg, J. M., & Chanani, S. (2011). List-wide control is not entirely elusive: Evidence from picture–word Stroop. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 930–936. · DOI
  12. Bugg, J. M., & Hutchison, K. A. (2013). Converging evidence for control of color-word Stroop interference at the item level. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 433–449.
  13. Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Chanani, S. (2011). Why it is too early to lose control in accounts of item-specific proportion congruency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 844–859.
  14. Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Toth, J. P. (2008). Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1484–1494. · DOI
  15. Bugg, J. M., McDaniel, M. A., Scullin, M. K., & Braver, T. S. (2011). Revealing list-level control in the Stroop task by uncovering its benefits and a cost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1595–1606.
  16. Cañadas, E., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Milliken, B., & Lupiáñez, J. (2013). Social categories as a context for the allocation of attentional control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 934–943. · DOI
  17. Carter, C. S., Braver, T., Barch, D. M., Botvinick, M., Noll, D., & Cohen, J. D. (1998). Anterior cingulate, error detection and performance monitoring: An event related fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 107–107.
  18. Cheesman, J., & Merikle, P. M. (1986). Distinguishing conscious from unconscious perceptual processes. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 40, 343–367. · DOI
  19. Cherry, E. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975–979. · DOI
  20. Cohen, J. D., & Huston, T. A. (1994). Progress in the use of interactive models for understanding attention and performance. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 453–476). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  21. Corballis, P. M., & Gratton, G. (2003). Independent control of processing strategies for different locations in the visual field. Biological Psychology, 64, 191–209. · DOI
  22. Cosman, J. D., & Vecera, S. P. (2014). Establishment of an attentional set via statistical learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 1–6.
  23. Crump, M. J. C., Brosowsky, N. P., & Milliken, B. (2017). Reproducing the location-based context-specific proportion congruent effect for frequency unbiased items: A reply to Hutcheon and Spieler (2016). Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1792-1807. · DOI
  24. Crump, M. J. C., Gong, Z. Y., & Milliken, B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 316-321. · DOI
  25. Crump, M. J. C., & Milliken, B. (2009). The flexibility of context-specific control: Evidence for context-driven generalization of item-specific control settings. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1523–1532. · DOI
  26. Crump, M. J. C., Vaquero, J. M. M., & Milliken, B. (2008). Context-specific learning and control: The roles of awareness, task relevance, and relative salience. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 22–36. · DOI
  27. Dulaney, C. L., & Rogers, W. A. (1994). Mechanisms underlying reduction in Stroop interference with practice for young and old adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 20, 470–484.
  28. Duthoo, W., Abrahamse, E. L., Braem, S., Boehler, C. N., & Notebaert, W. (2014). The congruency sequence effect 3.0: A critical test of conflict adaptation. PLOS ONE, 9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110462 · DOI
  29. Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 374–380. · DOI
  30. Egner, T. (2014). Creatures of habit (and control): A multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1247). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01247 · DOI
  31. Ellis, N. R., & Dulaney, C. L. (1991). Further evidence for cognitive inertia of persons with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95, 613–621.
  32. Forrin, N. D., & MacLeod, C. M. (2018). The influence of contingency proportion on contingency learning. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 80, 155–165. · DOI
  33. Freitas, A. L., Bahar, M., Yang, S., & Banai, R. (2007). Contextual adjustments in cognitive control across tasks. Psychological Science, 18, 1040–1043. · DOI
  34. Freitas, A. L., & Clark, S. L. (2015). Generality and specificity in cognitive control: Conflict adaptation within and across selective-attention tasks but not across selective-attention and Simon tasks. Psychological Research, 79, 143–162. · DOI
  35. Funes, M. J., Lupiáñez, J., & Humphreys, G. (2010). Analyzing the generality of conflict adaptation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 147–161.
  36. Gage, G. J., Parikh, H., & Marzullo, T. C. (2008). The cingulate cortex does everything. Annals of Improbable Research, 14(3), 12-15.
  37. Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Oxford: Erlbaum.
  38. Goldfarb, L., & Henik, A. (2007). Evidence for task conflict in the Stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1170–1176.
  39. Grandjean, J., D’Ostilio, K., Fias, W., Phillips, C., Balteau, E., & Degueldre, C. (2013). Exploration of the mechanisms underlying the ISPC effect: Evidence from behavioral and neuroimaging data. Neuropsychologia, 51, 1040–1049. · DOI
  40. Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506. · DOI
  41. Grice, G. R. (1968). Stimulus intensity and response evocation. Psychological Review, 75, 359–373. · DOI
  42. Grice, G. R., & Hunter, J. J. (1964). Stimulus intensity effects depend upon the type of experimental design. Psychological Review, 71, 247–256. · DOI
  43. Grinband, J., Savitskaya, J., Wager, T. D., Teichert, T., Ferrera, V. P., & Hirsch, J. (2011a). Conflict, error likelihood, and RT: Response to Brown & Yeung et al. NeuroImage, 57, 320–322. · DOI
  44. Grinband, J., Savitskaya, J., Wager, T. D., Teichert, T., Ferrera, V. P., & Hirsch, J. (2011b). The dorsal medial frontal cortex is sensitive to time on task, not response conflict or error likelihood. NeuroImage, 57, 303–311. · DOI
  45. Grosjean, M., Rosenbaum, D. A., & Elsinger, C. (2001). Timing and reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 256–272. · DOI
  46. Hazeltine, E., Lightman, E., Schwarb, H., & Schumacher, E. H. (2011). The coundaries of sequential modulations: Evidence for set-level control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1898–1914.
  47. Hazeltine, E., & Mordkoff, J. T. (2014). Resolved but not forgotten: Stroop conflict dredges up the past. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1327). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01327 · DOI
  48. Heathcote, A., Brown, S., & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2000). The power law repealed: The case for an exponential law of practice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 185–207. · DOI
  49. Heinemann, A., Kunde, W., & Kiesel, A. (2009). Context-specific prime-congruency effects: On the role of conscious stimulus representations for cognitive control. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 966–976. · DOI
  50. Hintzman, D. L. (1984). Minerva 2: A simulation model of human memory. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 16, 96–101. · DOI
  51. Hintzman, D. L. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411–428. · DOI
  52. Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95, 528–551. · DOI
  53. Holland, P. C. (1992). Occasion setting in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 28, 69–125. · DOI
  54. Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68, 1–17. · DOI
  55. Hubbard, J., Kuhns, D., Schafer, T. A. J., & Mayr, U. (2017). Is conflict adaptation due to active regulation or passive carry-over? Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43, 385–393.
  56. Hutcheon, T. G., & Spieler, D. H. (2017). Limits on the generalizability of context-driven control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1292–1304. · DOI
  57. Hutchison, K. A. (2011). The interactive effects of listwide control, item-based control, and working memory capacity on Stroop performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 851–860.
  58. Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 638–644. · DOI
  59. Jiang, Y. H., & Chun, M. M. (2001). Selective attention modulates implicit learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 1105–1124. · DOI
  60. Jiménez, L., & Méndez, A. (2014). Even with time, conflict adaptation is not made of expectancies. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1042. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01042 · DOI
  61. Kan, I. P., Teubner-Rhodes, S., Drummey, A. B., Nutile, L., Krupa, L., & Novick, J. M. (2013). To adapt or not to adapt: The question of domain-general cognitive control. Cognition, 129, 637–651. · DOI
  62. Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W., Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303, 1023–1026. · DOI · Paper page
  63. Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., & Hoffmann, J. (2006). Evidence for task-specific resolution of response conflict. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 800–806. · DOI
  64. Kim, S., & Cho, Y. S. (2014). Congruency sequence effect without feature integration and contingency learning. Acta Psychologica, 149, 60–68. · DOI
  65. King, J. A., Donkin, C., Korb, F. M., & Egner, T. (2012). Model-based analysis of context-specific cognitive control. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(538). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00358 · DOI
  66. Kinoshita, S., Forster, K. I., & Mozer, M. C. (2008). Unconscious cognition isn’t that smart: Modulation of masked repetition priming effect in the word naming task. Cognition, 107, 623–649. · DOI
  67. Kinoshita, S., Mozer, M. C., & Forster, K. I. (2011). Dynamic adaptation to history of trial difficulty explains the effect of congruency proportion on masked priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 622–636. · DOI
  68. Kleiman, T., Hassin, R. R., & Trope, Y. (2014). The control-freak mind: Stereotypical biases are eliminated following conflict-activated cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 498–503. · DOI
  69. Kohfeld, D. L. (1968). Stimulus intensity and adaptation level as determinants of simple reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 468–473. · DOI
  70. Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2006). Sequential modulations of correspondence effects across spatial dimensions and tasks. Memory & Cognition, 34, 356–367. · DOI
  71. Lehle, C., & Hubner, R. (2008). On-the-fly adaptation of selectivity in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 814–818. · DOI
  72. Levin, Y., & Tzelgov, J. (2014). Conflict components of the Stroop effect and their “control”. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(463). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00463 · DOI
  73. Levin, Y., & Tzelgov, J. (2016). Contingency learning is not affected by conflict experience: Evidence from a task conflict-free, item-specific Stroop paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 164, 39–45. · DOI
  74. Lindsay, D. S., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 219–234.
  75. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527. · DOI · Paper page
  76. Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 166–174. · DOI
  77. Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J., & Williamson, J. (1984). Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 135–138. · DOI
  78. Lombardi, C. M., & Hurlbert, S. H. (2009). Misprescription and misuse of one-tailed tests. Austral Ecology, 34, 447–468. · DOI · Paper page
  79. Lorentz, E., McKibben, T., Ekstrand, C., Gould, L., Anton, K., & Borowsky, R. (2016). Disentangling genuine semantic Stroop effects in reading from contingency effects: On the need for two neutral baselines. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(386). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.0038 · DOI
  80. Los, S. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials. Acta Psychologica, 94, 145–188. · DOI
  81. Lowe, D. G., & Mitterer, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 684–700. · DOI
  82. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203. · DOI · Paper page
  83. MacLeod, C. M. (1998). Training on integrated versus separated Stroop tasks: The progression of interference and facilitation. Memory & Cognition, 26, 201–211. · DOI · Paper page
  84. MacLeod, C. M., & MacDonald, P. A. (2000). Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: Uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 383–391. · DOI · Paper page
  85. Matzel, L. D., Held, F. P., & Miller, R. R. (1988). Information and expression of simultaneous and backward associations: Implications for contiguity theory. Learning and Motivation, 19, 317–344. · DOI
  86. Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 450–452. · DOI
  87. Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238. · DOI · Paper page
  88. Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202. · DOI · Paper page
  89. Miller, J. (1987). Priming is not necessary for selective-attention failures: Semantic effects of unattended, unprimed letters. Perception & Psychophysics, 41, 419–434. · DOI
  90. Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic-listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 56–60. · DOI
  91. Mordkoff, J. T. (1996). Selective attention and internal constraints: There is more to the flanker effect than biased contingencies. In A. Kramer, M. G. H. Coles, & G. D. Logan (Eds.), Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention (pp. 483–502). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. · DOI
  92. Mordkoff, J. T. (2012). Observation: Three reasons to avoid having half of the trials be congruent in a four-alternative forced-choice experiment on sequential modulation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 750–757. · DOI
  93. Mordkoff, J. T., & Halterman, R. (2008). Feature integration without visual attention: Evidence from the correlated flankers task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 385–389. · DOI
  94. Mozer, M. C., Colagrosso, M. D., & Huber, D. E. (2002). A rational analysis of cognitive control in a speeded discrimination task. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 51-51.
  95. Mozer, M. C., Kinoshita, S., & Davis, C. (2004). Control of response initiation: Mechanisms of adaptation to recent experience. Proceedings of the twenty sixth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 981–986). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
  96. Musen, G., & Squire, L. R. (1993). Implicit learning of color-word associations using a Stroop paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 19, 789–798.
  97. Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1–55). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
  98. Nosofsky, R. M. (1988a). Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 700–708.
  99. Nosofsky, R. M. (1988b). Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 54–65.
  100. Ollman, R. T., & Billington, M. J. (1972). The deadline model for simple reaction times. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 311–336. · DOI
  101. Reuss, H., Desender, K., Kiesel, A., & Kunde, W. (2014). Unconscious conflicts in unconscious contexts: The role of awareness and timing in flexible conflict adaptation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1701–1718. · DOI
  102. Ridderinkhof, K. R., Ullsperger, M., Crone, E. A., & Nieuwenhuis, S. (2004). The role of the medial frontal cortex in cognitive control. Science, 306, 443–447. · DOI · Paper page
  103. Ridderinkhof, K. R., Vandermolen, M. W., & Bashore, T. R. (1995). Limits on the application of additive factors logic: Violations of stage robustness suggest a dual-process architecture to explain flanker effects on target processing. Acta Psychologica, 90, 29–48. · DOI
  104. Schmidt, J. R. (2013a). The parallel episodic processing (PEP) model: Dissociating contingency and conflict adaptation in the item-specific proportion congruent paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 142, 119–126. · DOI
  105. Schmidt, J. R. (2013b). Questioning conflict adaptation: Proportion congruent and Gratton effects reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 615–630. · DOI
  106. Schmidt, J. R. (2013c). Temporal learning and list-level proportion congruency: Conflict adaptation or learning when to respond? PLOS ONE, 8, e0082320. · DOI
  107. Schmidt, J. R. (2014a). Contingencies and attentional capture: The importance of matching stimulus informativeness in the item-specific proportion congruent task. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(540). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00540 · DOI
  108. Schmidt, J. R. (2014b). List-level transfer effects in temporal learning: Further complications for the list-level proportion congruent effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 373–385. · DOI
  109. Schmidt, J. R. (2016a). Context-specific proportion congruent effects: An episodic learning account and computational model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(1806). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01806 · DOI
  110. Schmidt, J. R. (2016b). Proportion congruency and practice: A contingency learning account of asymmetric list shifting effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 1496–1505.
  111. Schmidt, J. R. (2017). Time-out for conflict monitoring theory: Preventing rhythmic biases eliminates the list-level proportion congruent effect. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 52–62. · DOI
  112. Schmidt, J. R. (2018). Best not to bet on the horserace: A comment on Forrin and MacLeod (2017) and a relevant stimulus-response compatibility view of colour-word contingency learning asymmetries. Memory & Cognition, 46, 326–335. · DOI
  113. Schmidt, J. R., Augustinova, M., & De Houwer, J. (2018). Category learning in the colour-word contingency learning paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 658–666. · DOI
  114. Schmidt, J. R., & Besner, D. (2008). The Stroop effect: Why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 514–523.
  115. Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J. C., Cheesman, J., & Besner, D. (2007). Contingency learning without awareness: Evidence for implicit control. Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 421–435. · DOI
  116. Schmidt, J. R., & De Houwer, J. (2011). Now you see it, now you don’t: Controlling for contingencies and stimulus repetitions eliminates the Gratton effect. Acta Psychologica, 138, 176–186. · DOI
  117. Schmidt, J. R., & De Houwer, J. (2016a). Contingency learning tracks with stimulus-response proportion: No evidence of misprediction costs. Experimental Psychology, 63, 79–88. · DOI
  118. Schmidt, J. R., & De Houwer, J. (2016b). Time course of colour-word contingency learning: Practice curves, pre-exposure benefits, unlearning, and relearning. Learning and Motivation, 56, 15–30. · DOI
  119. Schmidt, J. R., De Houwer, J., & Rothermund, K. (2016). The Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP) Model 2.0: A single computational model of stimulus-response binding, contingency learning, power curves, and mixing costs. Cognitive Psychology, 91, 82–108. · DOI
  120. Schmidt, J. R., & Lemercier, C. (2018). Context-specific proportion congruent effects: Compound-cue contingency learning in disguise. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818787155 · DOI
  121. Schmidt, J. R., Lemercier, C., & De Houwer, J. (2014). Context-specific temporal learning with non-conflict stimuli: Proof-of-principle for a learning account of context-specific proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(1241). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01241 · DOI
  122. Schmidt, J. R., & Liefooghe, B. (2016). Feature integration and task switching: Diminished switch costs after controlling for stimulus, response, and cue repetitions. PLOS ONE, 11, e0151188. · DOI
  123. Schmidt, J. R., Notebaert, W., & Van den Bussche, E. (2015). Is conflict adaptation an illusion? Frontiers in Psychology, 6(172). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00172 · DOI
  124. Schmidt, J. R., & Weissman, D. H. (2014). Congruency sequence effects without feature integration or contingency learning confounds. PLOS ONE, 9, e0102337.
  125. Schmidt, J. R., & Weissman, D. H. (2015). Contingent attentional capture triggers the congruency sequence effect. Acta Psychologica, 159, 61–68. · DOI
  126. Schmidt, J. R., & Weissman, D. H. (2016). Congruency sequence effects and previous response times: Conflict adaptation or temporal learning? Psychological Research, 80, 590–607. · DOI
  127. Sheth, S. A., Mian, M. K., Patel, S. R., Asaad, W. F., Williams, Z. M., & Dougherty, D. D. (2012). Human dorsal anterior cingulate cortex neurons mediate ongoing behavioural adaptation. Nature, 488, 218–221. · DOI · Paper page
  128. Simon, J. R., Craft, J. L., & Webster, J. B. (1973). Reactions toward stimulus source: Analysis of correct responses and errors over a five-day period. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101, 175–178. · DOI
  129. Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: Effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304. · DOI
  130. Smid, H. G. O. M., Lamain, W., Hogeboom, M. M., Mulder, G., & Mulder, L. J. M. (1991). Psychophysiological evidence for continuous information-transmission between visual-search and response processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 696–714.
  131. Spapé, M. M., & Hommel, B. (2008). He said, she said: Episodic retrieval induces conflict adaptation in an auditory Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1117–1121. · DOI
  132. Spapé, M. M., & Hommel, B. (2014). Sequential modulations of the Simon effect depend on episodic retrieval. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(855). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00855 · DOI
  133. Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276–315. · DOI · Paper page
  134. Strayer, D. L., & Kramer, A. F. (1994a). Strategies and automaticity: 1. Basic findings and conceptual-framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 318–341.
  135. Strayer, D. L., & Kramer, A. F. (1994b). Strategies and automaticity: 2. Dynamic aspects of strategy adjustment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 342–365.
  136. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies on interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–661. · DOI · Paper page
  137. Sutherland, N. S., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1971). Mechanisms of animal discrimination learning. New York: Academic Press.
  138. Van Duren, L. L., & Sanders, A. F. (1988). On the robustness of the additive factors stage structure in blocked and mixed choice reaction designs. Acta Psychologica, 69, 83–94. · DOI
  139. van Steenbergen, H., Haasnoot, E., Bocanegra, B. R., Berretty, E. W., & Hommel, B. (2015). Practice explains abolished behavioural adaptation after human dorsal anterior cingulate cortex lesions. Scientific Reports, 5(9721). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep09721 · DOI
  140. Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008). Automatic and controlled response inhibition: Associative learning in the go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 649–672. · DOI
  141. Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2009). Automaticity of cognitive control: Goal priming in response-inhibition paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1381–1388.
  142. Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115, 518–525. · DOI
  143. Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2009). Adaptation by binding: A learning account of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 252–257. · DOI
  144. Weidler, B. J., & Bugg, J. M. (2016). Transfer of location-specific control to untrained locations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 2202–2217. · DOI
  145. Weidler, B. J., Dey, A., & Bugg, J. M. (2018). Attentional control transfers beyond the reference frame. Psychological Research, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0984-9 · DOI
  146. Weissman, D. H., Colter, K., Drake, B., & Morgan, C. (2015). The congruency sequence effect transfers across different response modes. Acta Psychologica, 161, 86–94. · DOI
  147. Weissman, D. H., Egner, T., Hawks, Z., & Link, J. (2015). The congruency sequence effect emerges when the distracter precedes the target. Acta Psychologica, 156, 8–21. · DOI
  148. Weissman, D. H., Hawks, Z. W., & Egner, T. (2016). Different levels of learning interact to shape the congruency sequence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 566–583.
  149. Weissman, D. H., Jiang, J. F., & Egner, T. (2014). Determinants of congruency sequence effects without learning and memory confounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 2022–2037.
  150. Wendt, M., & Kiesel, A. (2011). Conflict adaptation in time: Foreperiods as contextual cues for attentional adjustment. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 910–916. · DOI
  151. Wendt, M., Kluwe, R. H., & Peters, A. (2006). Sequential modulations of interference evoked by processing task-irrelevant stimulus features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 644–667.
  152. Whitehead, P. S., Brewer, G. A., Patwary, N., & Blais, C. (2016). Contingency learning is reduced for high conflict stimuli. Acta Psychologica https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.09.002 · DOI
  153. Wühr, P., Duthoo, W., & Notebaert, W. (2015). Generalizing attentional control across dimensions and tasks: Evidence from transfer of proportion-congruent effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 779–801. · DOI
  154. Yeung, N., Cohen, J. D., & Botvinick, M. M. (2011). Errors of interpretation and modeling: A reply to Grinband et al. NeuroImage, 57, 316–319. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Schmidt, J. R.
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-12-03
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
753-771
ISSN
  • 1069-9384
  • 1531-5320
DOI
10.3758/s13423-018-1520-z
Cited by
127
References
10
Language
en
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

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