Conflict adaptation is of particular importance to human information processing, as it assists in efficient responding when confronted with inconsistent information. Past investigators have focused on the role and mechanisms of conflict adaptation effects in cognitive control tasks, but there have been few studies of conflict adaptation effects in numerical inductive reasoning. In this study we adopted identical, perceptual mismatch and rule violation conditions to investigate conflict adaptation in numerical inductive reasoning. Behaviorally, we found shorter response times on trials following our experimental condition, as compared to pre-trials. In our event-related potential (ERP) electroencephalogram (EEG) results, N2 reflected the improvement in processing efficiency of rule violations in numerical inductive reasoning. Thus, these data suggest the presence of a conflict adaptation effect in high-level processing.
BotvinickM. M.BraverT. S.BarchD. M.CarterC. S.CohenJ. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624
2.
BotvinickM. M.CohenJ. D.CarterC. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: An update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(12), 539−546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.003
3.
ClaysonP. E.LarsonM. J. (2011). Conflict adaptation and sequential trial effects: Support for the conflict monitoring theory. Neuropsychologia, 49(7), 1953–1961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.03.023
4.
ForsterS. E.CarterC. S.CohenJ. D.ChoR. Y. (2010). Parametric manipulation of the conflict signal and control-state adaptation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(4), 923–935. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2010.21458
5.
FreitasA. L.BanaiR.ClarkS. L. (2009). When cognitive control is calibrated: Event-related potential correlates of adapting to information-processing conflict despite erroneous response preparation. Psychophysiology, 46(6), 1226–1233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00864.x
6.
HanslmayrS.PastotterB.BaumlK. H.GruberS.WimberM.KlimeschW. (2008). The electrophysiological dynamics of interference during the Stroop task. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(2), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20020
7.
HassinR. R.BarghJ. A.ZimermanS. (2009). Automatic and Flexible: The case of non-conscious goal pursuit. Social Cognition, 27(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2009.27.1.20
8.
KoppB.RistF.MattlerU. W. E. (1996). N200 in the flanker task as a neurobehavioral tool for investigating executive control. Psychophysiology, 33(3), 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1996.tb00425.x
9.
LarsonM. J.ClawsonA.ClaysonP. E.BaldwinS. A. (2013). Cognitive conflict adaptation in generalized anxiety disorder. Biological Psychology, 94(2), 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.08.006
MayrU.AwhE.LaureyP. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5), 450–452. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1051
12.
NieuwenhuisS.StinsJ. F.PosthumaD.PoldermanT. J.BoomsmaD. I.de GeusE. J. (2006). Accounting for sequential trial effects in the flanker task: Conflict adaptation or associative priming?Memory & Cognition, 34(6), 1260–1272. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193270
13.
NotebaertW.GeversW.V ErbruggenF.LiefoogheB. (2006). Top-down and bottom-up sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 112−117. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193821
14.
PanF.OuY.ZhangX. (2020). Reward modulates affective priming effect in cognitive conflict processing: Electrophysiological evidence. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 59(14), 1−10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00059
15.
StrobachT.WendtM.TomatM.Luna-RodriguezA.JacobsenT. (2020). No evidence for the reduction of task competition and attentional adjustment during task-switching practice. Acta Psychologica, 204(2020), 103036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103036
16.
ThomasS. J.GonsalvezC. J.JohnstoneS. J. (2009). Sequence effects in the Go/NoGo task: Inhibition and facilitation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 74(3), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2009.09.002
17.
Torres-QuesadaM.FunesM. J.LupiáñezJ. (2013). Dissociating proportion congruent and conflict adaptation effects in a Simon–Stroop procedure. Acta Psychologica, 142(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.11.015
18.
VergutsT.NotebaertW. (2009). Adaptation by binding: A learning account of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(6), 252−257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.02.007
19.
Von GuntenC. D.Volpert‐EsmondH. I.BartholowB. D. (2017). Temporal dynamics of reactive cognitive control as revealed by event‐related brain potentials. Psychophysiology, 55(3), Article e13007. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13007
20.
XiaoF.ChenQ. F.LongC. Q.LiH. (2018). The rule expectancy effect on the electrophysiological correlates underlying numerical rule acquisition. Neuroscience Letters, 665(2018), 252–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2017.09.052
21.
XiaoF.SunT.QiS.ChenQ. (2019). Common and distinct brain responses to detecting top-down and bottom-up conflicts underlying numerical inductive reasoning. Psychophysiology, 56(12), Article e13455. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13455
22.
ZhouX.ChenC.DongQ.ZhangH.ChenC.QiaoS. (2006). Numerical distance effect in the N240 component in a number matching task. NeuroReport, 17(10), 991–994. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.wnr.0000221840.12632.9f
