The congruency sequence effect (CSE) refers to facilitated conflict processing following incongruent than congruent trials, and reflects enhanced cognitive control during conflict processing. Although this effect is mostly conceived as being reactive, proactive control can also unlock it under specific circumstances according to previous studies (e.g., when an informative cue is used). However, whether or not humans can flexibly switch between these two complementing control modes remains unclear. To address this question, 55 participants completed the confound-minimized Stroop task in different blocks where the cue about the upcoming trial’s congruency was either informative or not, and orthogonally to it, the cue-stimulus interval (CSI) was either short or long. We tested if the size of the CSE could change depending on the specific combination of these two factors, which would indicate that cognitive control depends on the subtle balance between reactive and proactive control, and is therefore flexible. However, results showed that the CSE was significant and comparable across the four combinations of CSI and Cue type, suggesting that it primarily stemmed from reactive control. We discuss our results against the dual mechanism of control (DMC) framework (Braver in Trends Cogn Sci 16:106–113, 2012).

一致性序列效应 (CSE) 是指在不一致而不是一致的试验之后促进冲突处理，并反映在冲突处理过程中增强的认知控制。尽管这种效应主要被认为是反应性的，但根据先前的研究（例如，当使用信息提示时），主动控制也可以在特定情况下解锁它。然而，人类是否可以在这两种互补控制模式之间灵活切换仍不清楚。为了解决这个问题，55 名参与者在不同的区块中完成了混淆最小化 Stroop 任务，其中关于即将到来的试验一致性的提示要么提供信息，要么不提供信息，并且与之正交的是，提示刺激间隔 (CSI) 要么短要么长。我们测试了 CSE 的大小是否会根据这两个因素的具体组合而改变，这表明认知控制取决于反应控制和主动控制之间的微妙平衡，因此是灵活的。然而，结果表明，CSE 在 CSI 和 Cue 类型的四种组合中具有显着性和可比性，表明它主要源于反应控制。我们针对双重控制机制 (DMC) 框架讨论我们的结果（Braver in Trends Cogn Sci 16:106–113, 2012）。表明它主要源于反应控制。我们针对双重控制机制 (DMC) 框架讨论我们的结果（Braver in Trends Cogn Sci 16:106–113, 2012）。表明它主要源于反应控制。我们针对双重控制机制 (DMC) 框架讨论我们的结果（Braver in Trends Cogn Sci 16:106–113, 2012）。