Behaviour that is assumed to be guided by strategy can, in fact, be based on the implicit learning of regularities in the environment. We demonstrate this point in the context of a Stroop experiment. It has been shown previously that performance on this measure of cognitive control varies as a function of the relative proportions of congruent and incongruent trials in a block. Here we provide evidence that this modulation of performance is largely based on implicit, rather than explicit, knowledge of these proportions. This result has important implications for our understanding of cognitive control.
BlaisC.Implicit vs. deliberate control and its implications for awareness.Effortless attention: A new perspective in the cognitive science of attention and action,CsikszentmihalyiM.BruyaB.J.MIT PressCambridge, MA2010141–157.
2.
BlaisC.BesnerD.Reverse Stroop effects with untranslated responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,200632, 61345–1353.
3.
BlaisC.RobidouxS.RiskoE.F.BesnerD.Item specific adaptation and the conflict monitoring hypothesis: A computational model.Psychological Review,2007114, 41076–1086.
4.
BraverT.S.CohenJ.D.BarchD.M.The role of prefrontal cortex in normal and disordered cognitive control: A cognitive neuroscience perspective.Principles of frontal lobe function,StussD.T.KnightR.T.Oxford University PressNew York2002428–447.
5.
BungeS.A.WallisJ.D.Neuroscience of rule-guided behavior,Oxford University PressNew York2007.
6.
CheesmanJ.MerikleP.M.Distinguishing conscious from unconscious perceptual processes.Canadian Journal of Psychology,198640, 4343–367.
7.
CohenJ.D.DunbarK.McClellandJ.L.On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect.Psychological Review,199097, 3332–361.
8.
DesimoneR.DuncanJ.Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention.Annual Review of Neuroscience,199518, 193–222.
9.
LindsayD.S.JacobyL.L.Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,199420, 2219–234.
10.
LoganG.D.ZbrodoffN.J.When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task.Memory & Cognition,19797, 3166–174.
11.
LoganG.D.ZbrodoffN.J.WilliamsonJ.Strategies in the color–word Stroop task.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,198422, 2135–138.
12.
LoweD.G.MittererJ.O.Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task.Canadian Journal of Psychology,198236, 4684–700.
13.
MacLeodC.M.DunbarK.Training and Stroop-like interference: Evidence for a continuum of automaticity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,198814, 1126–135.
14.
MillerE.K.CohenJ.D.An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function.Annual Review of Neuroscience,200124, 167–202.
15.
PosnerM.I.SynderC.R.Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals.Attention and Performance V,RabbittP.M.DornicS.Academic PressSan Diego, CA1975669–682.
16.
ReingoldE.M.MerikleP.M.Using direct and indirect measures to study perception without awareness.Perception & Psychophysics,198844, 6563–575.
17.
ShiffrinR.M.SchneiderW.Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory.Psychological Review,197784, 2127–190.
18.
VergutsT.NotebaertW.Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation.Psychological Review,2008115, 2518–525.
