Abstract
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).
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The CSE score was computed using the formula: ([CI-CC)]-[II-IC]) following van Steenbergen et al. (2009).
References
Aarts, E., & Roelofs, A. (2011). Attentional control in anterior cingulate cortex based on probabilistic cueing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 716–727.
Aben, B., Verguts, T., & Van den Bussche, E. (2017). Beyond trial-by-trial adaptation: A quantification of the time scale of cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 509.
Alpay, G., Goerke, M., & Stürmer, B. (2009). Precueing imminent conflict does not override sequence-dependent interference adaptation. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 6, 803–816.
Appelbaum, L. G., Boehler, C. N., Davis, L. A., Won, R. J., & Woldorff, M. G. (2014). The dynamics of proactive and reactive cognitive control processes in the human brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 26(5), 1021–1038.
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv: 1406.5823.
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624.
Braem, S., Bugg, J. M., Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J., Weissman, D. H., Notebaert, W., & Egner, T. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 769–783.
Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 106–113.
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.
Bugg, J. M., & Smallwood, A. (2016). The next trial will be conflicting! Effects of explicit congruency pre-cues on cognitive control. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 80, 16–33.
Clayson, P. E., & Larson, M. J. (2011). Conflict adaptation and sequential trial effects: Support for the conflict monitoring theory. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1953–1961.
Correa, Á., Rao, A., & Nobre, A. C. (2009). Anticipating conflict facilitates controlled stimulus-response selection. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21, 1461–1472.
Duthoo, W., Abrahamse, E. L., Braem, S., & Notebaert, W. (2014). Going, going, gone? Proactive control prevents the congruency sequence effect from rapid decay. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 78, 483–2493.
Duthoo, W., & Notebaert, W. (2012). Conflict adaptation: it is not what you expect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1993–2007.
Egner, T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 380–390.
Egner, T., Delano, M., & Hirsch, J. (2007). Separate conflict-specific cognitive control mechanisms in the human brain. NeuroImage, 35, 940–948.
Egner, T., Ely, S., & Grinband, J. (2010). Going, going, gone: characterizing the time-course of congruency sequence effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 154.
Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005a). Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1784.
Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005b). The neural correlates and functional integration of cognitive control in a Stroop task. NeuroImage, 24, 539–547.
Goldfarb, L., & Henik, A. (2013). The effect of a preceding cue on the conflict solving mechanism. Experimental Psychology, 60, 347–353.
Hagger, M. S., Wood, C., Stiff, C., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2010). Ego depletion and the strength model of self-control: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 495.
Horga, G., Maia, T. V., Wang, P., Wang, Z., Marsh, R., & Peterson, B. S. (2011). Adaptation to conflict via context-driven anticipatory signals in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 16208–16216.
Inzlicht, M., & Gutsell, J. N. (2007). Running on empty: Neural signals for self-control failure. Psychological Science, 18, 933–937.
Inzlicht, M., & Schmeichel, B. J. (2012). What is ego depletion? Toward a mechanistic revision of the resource model of self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 450–463.
Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego depletion—Is it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect self-regulation. Psychological Science, 21, 1686–1693.
Karayanidis, F., Mansfield, E. L., Galloway, K. L., Smith, J. L., Provost, A., & Heathcote, A. (2009). Anticipatory reconfiguration elicited by fully and partially informative cues that validly predict a switch in task. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 202–215.
Lo, S., & Andrews, S. (2015). To transform or not to transform: using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1171.
Locke, H. S., & Braver, T. S. (2008). Motivational influences on cognitive control: behavior, brain activation, and individual differences. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 99–112.
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 and Review, 19, 750–757.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
Scherbaum, S., Fischer, R., Dshemuchadse, M., & Goschke, T. (2011). The dynamics of cognitive control: Evidence for within-trial conflict adaptation from frequency-tagged EEG. Psychophysiology, 48, 591–600.
Schmidt, J. R., & Weissman, D. H. (2014). Congruency sequence effects without feature integration or contingency learning confounds. PLoS ONE, 9, e102337.
Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2013). The expected value of control: an integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79, 217–240.
Steenbergen, H. V., Band, G. P., & Hommel, B. (2009). Reward counteracts conflict adaptation: Evidence for a role of affect in executive control. Psychological Science, 20, 1473–1477.
van den Wildenberg, W. P., Ridderinkhof, K. R., & Wylie, S. (2012). Once bitten, twice shy: On the transient nature of congruency sequence effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 264.
Weissman, D. H., Jiang, J., & Egner, T. (2014). Determinants of congruency sequence effects without learning and memory confounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40, 2022.
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer.
Wickham, H. (2017). Tidyverse: Easily install and load the ‘Tidyverse’. R package tidyverse (Version 1.2.1) [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/tidyverse/index.html
Yang, Q., Paul, K., & Pourtois, G. (2019). Defensive motivation increases conflict adaptation through local changes in cognitive control: Evidence from ERPs and mid-frontal theta. Biological Psychology, 148, 107738.
Yang, Q., & Pourtois, G. (2018). Conflict-driven adaptive control is enhanced by integral negative emotion on a short time scale. Cognition and Emotion, 32, 1637–1653.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a Grant (201606990022) from China Scholarship Council (CSC) and co-funding (BOF) Grant (BOFCHN2017000101) from Ghent University awarded to Qian Yang.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ghent University.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yang, Q., Pourtois, G. Reduced flexibility of cognitive control: reactive, but not proactive control, underpins the congruency sequence effect. Psychological Research 86, 474–484 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01505-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01505-6