Cognitive control allows adapting our behaviour to improve performance. A behavioural signature of cognitive control is the Gratton effect. This effect is observed in conflict tasks and indicates smaller congruency effects after incongruent trials than after congruent trials. Metacognitive experience may play a role in this effect: When participants introspect on their conflict experience, the Gratton effect follows the conflict introspection instead of the stimulus congruency. However this Gratton effect could also be triggered by the labelling that the introspective method implies and/or by a misperception of the stimulus conflict. The current study investigated whether the experiential component of the introspection is necessary to trigger cognitive control or whether labelling a trial as conflicting or not can be sufficient. In a priming task, Gratton effects following metacognitive conflict experience and conflict label were contrasted. Replicating earlier reports, results showed that the metacognitive experience of conflict can trigger a Gratton effect. However a conflict label, either generated by the participants themselves or presented to the participants via feedback was not able to induce cognitive control. Results are discussed in light of current theories of cognitive control.
AbrahamseE.BraemS. (2015). Experience a conflict-either consciously or not (commentary on Desender, Van Opstal, and Van den Bussche, 2014). Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–3. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00179
2.
AlexanderW. H.BrownJ. W. (2010). Computational models of performance monitoring and cognitive control. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 658–677. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01085.x
3.
BotvinickM. M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: Reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 356–366. doi:10.3758/CABN.7.4.356
4.
BotvinickM. M.BraverT. S.BarchD. M.CarterC. S.CohenJ. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624
5.
CarterC. S.van VeenV. (2007). Anterior cingulate cortex and conflict detection: An update of theory and data. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 367–379. doi:10.3758/CABN.7.4.367
6.
DamasioA. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace.
7.
DesenderK.Van den BusscheE. (2012). Is consciousness necessary for conflict adaptation? A state of the art. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00003
8.
DesenderK.Van OpstalF.HughesG.Van den BusscheE. (2016). The temporal dynamics of metacognition: Dissociating task-related activity from later metacognitive processes. Neuropsychologia, 82, 54–64. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.01.003
9.
DesenderK.Van OpstalF.Van den BusscheE. (2014). Feeling the conflict: The crucial role of conflict experience in adaptation. Psychological Science, 25(3), 675–683. doi:10.1177/0956797613511468
10.
DreisbachG.FischerR. (2011). If it’s hard to read . . . try harder! Processing fluency as signal for effort adjustments. Psychological Research, 75(5), 376–383. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00426-010-0319-y
11.
DreisbachG.FischerR. (2012). Conflicts as aversive signals. Brain and Cognition, 78(2), 94–98. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.12.003
12.
DreisbachG.FischerR. (2015). Conflicts as aversive signals for control adaptation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 255–260. doi:10.1177/0963721415569569
13.
EfklidesA. (2008). Metacognition. European Psychologist, 13(4), 277–287. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.13.4.277
14.
FlavellJ. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906
15.
FringsC.WenturaD. (2008). Trial-by-trial effects in the affective priming paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 128(2), 318–323. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.03.004
van GaalS.LammeV. A. F.RidderinkhofK. R. (2010). Unconsciously triggered conflict adaptation. PLoS ONE, 5(7), e11508. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011508
18.
GehringW. J.WilloughbyA. R. (2002). The medial frontal cortex and the rapid processing of monetary gains and losses. Science, 295(5563), 2279–2282. doi:10.1126/science.1066893
19.
GrattonG.ColesM. G. H.DonchinE. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480–506. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.480
20.
HolroydC. B.ColesM. G. H. (2002). The neural basis of human error processing: Reinforcement learning, dopamine, and the error-related negativity. Psychological Review, 109(4), 679–709. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.4.679
21.
InzlichtM.BartholowB. D.HirshJ. B. (2015). Emotional foundations of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(3), 126–132. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.01.004
22.
KernsJ. G.CohenJ. D.MacDonaldA. W.ChoR. Y.StengerV. A.CarterC. S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303(5660), 1023–1026. doi:10.1126/science.1089910
23.
KundeW. (2003). Sequential modulations of stimulus-response correspondence effects depend on awareness of response conflict. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 198–205. doi:10.3758/BF03196485
24.
MorsellaE.WilsonL. E.BergerC. C.HonhongvaM.GazzaleyA.BarghJ. A. (2009). Subjective aspects of cognitive control at different stages of processing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71(8), 1807–1824. doi:10.3758/APP.71.8.1807
25.
NaccacheL.DehaeneS.CohenL.HabertM.-O.Guichart-GomezE.GalanaudD.WillerJ.-C. (2005). Effortless control: Executive attention and conscious feeling of mental effort are dissociable. Neuropsychologia, 43(9), 1318–1328. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.11.024
26.
NieuwenhuisS.YeungN.HolroydC. B.SchurgerA.CohenJ. D. (2004). Sensitivity of electrophysiological activity from medial frontal cortex to utilitarian and performance feedback. Cerebral Cortex (New York, N.Y.: 1991), 14(7), 741–747. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhh034
NotebaertW.VergutsT. (2011). Conflict and error adaptation in the Simon task. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 212–216. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.05.006
29.
RabbittP. (1967). Time to detect errors as a function of factors affecting choice-response time. Acta Psychologica, 27, 131–142. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(67)90053-4
30.
SongH.SchwarzN. (2008). If it’s hard to read, it’s hard to do: Processing fluency affects effort prediction and motivation. Psychological Science, 19(10), 986–988. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02189.x
31.
StürmerB.LeutholdH.SoetensE.SchröterH.SommerW. (2002). Control over location-based response activation in the Simon task: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28(6), 1345–1363. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.28.6.1345
32.
TimmermansB.CleeremansA. (2015). How can we measure awareness? An overview of current methods. In OvergaardM. (Ed.), Behavioural methods in consciousness research (Chapter 3, pp. 21–46). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199688890.003.0003
33.
WenkeD.FlemingS. M.HaggardP. (2010). Subliminal priming of actions influences sense of control over effects of action. Cognition, 115(1), 26–38. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.016
34.
YeungN.CohenJ. D.BotvinickM. M. (2011). Errors of interpretation and modeling: A reply to Grinband et al.NeuroImage, 57(2), 316–319. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.04.029
