Context-driven control refers to the fast and flexible weighting of stimulus dimensions that may be applied at the onset of a stimulus. Evidence for context-driven control comes from interference tasks in which participants encounter a high proportion of incongruent trials at one location and a high proportion of congruent trials at another location. Since the size of the congruency effect varies as a function of location, this suggests that stimulus dimensions are weighted differently based on the context in which they appear. However, manipulations of condition proportion are often confounded by variations in the frequency with which particular stimuli are encountered. To date, there is limited evidence for the context-driven control in the absence of stimulus frequency confounds. In the current paper, we attempt to replicate and extend one such finding [Crump, M. J. C., & Milliken, B. (2009). The flexibility of context-specific control: Evidence for context-driven generalization of item-specific control settings. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1523–1532]. Across three experiments we fail to find evidence for context-driven control in the absence of stimulus frequency confounds. Based on these results, we argue that consistency in the informativeness of the irrelevant dimension may be required for context-driven control to emerge.
BlaisC., RobidouxS., RiskoE. F., & BesnerD. (2007). Item-specific adaptation and the conflict-monitoring hypothesis: A computational model. Psychological Review, 114, 1076–1086.
2.
BuggJ. M. (2012). Dissociating levels of cognitive control. Current directions in Psychological Science, 21, 302–309.
3.
BuggJ. M. (2014). Evidence for the sparing of reactive cognitive control with age. Psychology and Aging, 29, 115–127.
4.
BuggJ. M., & CrumpM. J. C. (2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: A review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–16.
5.
BuggJ. M., & HutchisonK. 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.
6.
BuggJ. M., JacobyL. L., & TothJ. P. (2008). Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1484–1494.
7.
CohenJ. D., DunbarK., & McClellandJ. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account for the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332–361.
8.
CrumpM. J. C. (2016). Learning to selectively attend from context-specific attentional histories: A demonstration and some constraints. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 59–77.
9.
CrumpM. J. C., GongZ., & MillikenB. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 316–321.
10.
CrumpM. J. C., & LoganG. D. (2010). Contextual control over task-set retrieval. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 2047–2053.
11.
CrumpM. J. C., & MillikenB. (2009). The flexibility of context-specific control: Evidence for context-driven generalization of item-specific control settings. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1523–1532.
12.
CrumpM. J. C., VaqueroJ. M. M., & MillikenB. (2008). Context-specific learning and control: The roles of awareness, task relevance, and relative salience. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 22–36.
13.
EgnerT. (2014). Creatures of habit (and control): A multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of the congruency effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 29–39.
14.
HeinemannA., KundeW., & KieselA. (2009). Context-specific prime-congruency effects: On the role of conscious stimulus representations for cognitive control. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 966–976.
15.
HickW. E. (1952). On the rate of gain information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11–26.
16.
HutcheonT. G., & SpielerD. H. (2014). Contextual influences on the sequential congruency effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 155–162.
17.
HutchisonK. A. (2011). The interactive effects of list-wide control, item-based control, and working memory capacity on Stroop performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 37, 851–860.
18.
JacobyL. L., LindsayD. S., & HesselsS. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 638–644.
19.
KeppelG., & WickensT. D. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
20.
KingJ. A., DonkinC., KorbF. M., & EgnerT. (2012). Model-based analysis of context-specific control. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 156–168.
21.
KingJ. A., KorbF. M., & EgnerT. (2012). Priming of control: Implicit contextual cuing of top-down attentional set. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 8192–8200.
LoganG. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automation. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.
24.
LoganG. D., & ZbrodoffN. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects o increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 166–174.
25.
MacLeodC. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.
26.
MedinD. L., & SchafferM. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.
27.
MelaraR. D., & AlgomD. (2003). Driven by information: A tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychological Review, 110, 422–471.
28.
MillerE. K., & CohenJ. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202.
29.
NosofskyR. M., & PalmeriT. J. (1997). Exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychological Review, 104, 266–300.
30.
ReussH., DesenderK., KieselA., & KundeW. (2014). Unconscious conflicts in unconscious contexts: The role of awareness and timing in flexible conflict adaptation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1701–1718.
31.
SchmidtJ. R. (2014). Contingencies and attentional capture: The importance of matching stimulus informativeness in the item-specific proportion congruent task. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 157–159.
32.
VergutsT., & NotebaertW. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115, 518–525.
33.
VietzeI., & WendtM. (2009). Context specificity of conflict frequency-dependent control. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1391–1400.
34.
WeidlerB. J., & BuggJ. M. (2016). Transfer of location-specific control to untrained locations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1111396
