Cognitive control serves a crucial role in human higher mental functions. The Dual Mechanisms of Control theoretical framework provides a unifying account that decomposes cognitive control into two qualitatively distinct mechanisms—proactive control and reactive control. Here, we describe the Dual Mechanisms of Cognitive Control (DMCC) task battery, which was developed to probe cognitive control modes in a theoretically targeted manner, along with detailed descriptions of the experimental manipulations used to encourage shifts to proactive or reactive mode in each of four prototypical domains of cognition: selective attention, context processing, multitasking, and working memory. We present results from this task battery, conducted from a large (N > 100), online sample that rigorously evaluates the group effects of these manipulations in primary indices of proactive and reactive control, establishing the validity of the battery in providing dissociable yet convergent measures of the two cognitive control modes. The DMCC battery may be a useful tool for the research community to examine cognitive control in a theoretically targeted manner across different individuals and groups.
BarchD. M.CeaserA. (2012). Cognition in schizophrenia: Core psychological and neural mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.11.015
2.
BarchD. M.YodkovikN.Sypher-LockeH.HanewinkelM. (2008). Intrinsic motivation in schizophrenia: Relationships to cognitive function, depression, anxiety, and personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117(4), 776–787. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013944
3.
BauerR. M.IversonG. L.CernichA. N.BinderL. M.RuffR. M.NaugleR. I. (2012). Computerized neuropsychological assessment devices: Joint position paper of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology and the National Academy of Neuropsychology. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 27(3), 362–373. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acs027
4.
BraemS.BuggJ. M.SchmidtJ. R.CrumpM. J. C.WeissmanD. H.NotebaertW.EgnerT. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(9), 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.002
5.
BraverT. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010
6.
BraverT. S.GrayJ. R.BurgessG. C. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In JarroldC. (Ed.), Variation in working memory (pp. 76–106). Oxford University Press.
7.
BraverT. S.KizhnerA.TangR.FreundM. C.EtzelJ. A. (2021). The dual mechanisms of cognitive control project. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 33(9), 1990–2015. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01768
8.
BraverT. S.PaxtonJ. L.LockeH. S.BarchD. M. (2009). Flexible neural mechanisms of cognitive control within human prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(18), 7351–7356. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0808187106
9.
BraverT. S.ReynoldsJ. R.DonaldsonD. I. (2003). Neural mechanisms of transient and sustained cognitive control during task switching. Neuron, 39(4), 713–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(03)00466-5
10.
BraverT. S.SatputeA. B.RushB. K.RacineC. A.BarchD. M. (2005). Context processing and context maintenance in healthy aging and early stage dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Psychology and Aging, 20(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.20.1.33
11.
BuggJ.CrumpM. (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, Article 367. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00367
12.
BuggJ. M. (2014a). Conflict-triggered top-down control: Default mode, last resort, or no such thing?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 567–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035032
13.
BuggJ. M. (2014b). Evidence for the sparing of reactive cognitive control with age. Psychology and Aging, 29(1), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035270
14.
BuggJ. M.BraverT. S. (2016). Proactive control of irrelevant task rules during cued task switching. Psychological Research, 80(5), 860–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0686-5
15.
BuggJ. M.ChananiS. (2011). List-wide control is not entirely elusive: Evidence from picture–word Stroop. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(5), 930–936. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0112-y
16.
BuggJ. M.DeyA. (2018). When stimulus-driven control settings compete: On the dominance of categories as cues for control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(12), 1905–1932. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000580
17.
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(2), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029145
18.
BuggJ. M.JacobyL. L.ChananiS. (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(3), 844–859. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019957
19.
BurgessG. C.BraverT. S. (2010). Neural mechanisms of interference control in working memory: Effects of interference expectancy and fluid intelligence. PLOS ONE, 5(9), Article e12861. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0012861
20.
ChathamC. H.FrankM. J.MunakataY. (2009). Pupillometric and behavioral markers of a developmental shift in the temporal dynamics of cognitive control. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(14), 5529–5533. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810002106
21.
ChunC. A.CiceronL.KwapilT. R. (2018). A meta-analysis of context integration deficits across the schizotypy spectrum using AX-CPT and DPX tasks. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127(8), 789–806. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000383
22.
CrumpM. J. C.McDonnellJ. V.GureckisT. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a Tool for Experimental Behavioral Research. PLOS ONE, 8(3), Article e57410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057410
23.
De PisapiaN.BraverT. S. (2006). A model of dual control mechanisms through anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex interactions. Neurocomputing: An International Journal, 69(10–12), 1322–1326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2005.12.100
24.
DeyA.BuggJ. M. (2021). The timescale of control: A meta-control property that generalizes across tasks but varies between types of control. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 21(3), 472–489. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-020-00853-x
25.
EtzelJ. A.BroughR. E.FreundM. C.KizhnerA.LinY.SinghM. F.TangR.TayA.WangA.BraverT. S. (2022). The Dual Mechanisms of Cognitive Control dataset, a theoretically-guided within-subject task fMRI battery. Scientific Data, 9(1), Article 114. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01226-4
26.
FreundM. C.BuggJ. M.BraverT. S. (2021). A representational similarity analysis of cognitive control during color-word Stroop. Journal of Neuroscience, 41(35), 7388–7402. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2956-20.2021
27.
GermineL.NakayamaK.DuchaineB. C.ChabrisC. F.ChatterjeeG.WilmerJ. B. (2012). Is the Web as good as the lab? Comparable performance from Web and lab in cognitive/perceptual experiments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(5), 847–857. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0296-9
28.
GonthierC.BraverT. S.BuggJ. M. (2016). Dissociating proactive and reactive control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition, 44(5), 778–788. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0591-1
29.
GonthierC.MacnamaraB. N.ChowM.ConwayA. R.BraverT. S. (2016). Inducing proactive control shifts in the AX-CPT. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 1822. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01822
30.
HainesN.KvamP. D.IrvingL. H.SmithC.BeauchaineT. P.PittM. A.AhnW.TurnerB. (2020). Theoretically informed generative models can advance the psychological and brain sciences: Lessons from the reliability paradox. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xr7y3
31.
HautusM. J. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d.’Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 27(1), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203619
32.
HicksK. L.FosterJ. L.EngleR. W. (2016). Measuring working memory capacity on the web with the online working memory lab (the OWL). Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(4), 478–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.07.010
33.
HutchisonK. A. (2011). The interactive effects of listwide control, item-based control, and working memory capacity on Stroop performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 851–860. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023437
34.
JacobyL. L.LindsayD. S.HesselsS. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 638–644. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196526
35.
JanowichJ. R.CavanaghJ. F. (2018). Delay knowledge and trial set count modulate use of proactive versus reactive control: A meta-analytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(4), 1249–1268. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1502-1
KaneM. J.EngleR. W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 637–671. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196323
LindsayD. S.JacobyL. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.20.2.219
40.
LoganG. D.ZbrodoffN. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7(3), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197535
41.
LosS. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials. Acta Psychologica, 94(2), 145–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(95)00050-X
42.
MeiranN. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1423–1442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.6.1423
43.
MeiranN.KesslerY. (2008). The task rule congruency effect in task switching reflects activated long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(1), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.34.1.137
MiyakeA.FriedmanN. P.EmersonM. J.WitzkiA. H.HowerterA.WagerT. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “Frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
47.
PaxtonJ. L.BarchD. M.RacineC. A.BraverT. S. (2008). Cognitive control, goal maintenance, and prefrontal function in healthy aging. Cerebral Cortex, 18(5), 1010–1028. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhm135
48.
RichmondL. L.RedickT. S.BraverT. S. (2015). Remembering to prepare: The benefits (and costs) of high working memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(6), 1764–1777. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000122
49.
RogersR. D.MonsellS. (1995). Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207
50.
RouderJ. N.HaafJ. M. (2019). A psychometrics of individual differences in experimental tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(2), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1558-y
51.
Servan-SchreiberD.CohenJ. D.SteingardS. (1996). Schizophrenic deficits in the processing of context. A test of a theoretical model. Archives of General Psychiatry, 53(12), 1105–1112. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1996.01830120037008
52.
ShiffrinR. M.SchneiderW. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127
53.
SinghM. F.WangA.ColeM.ChingS.BraverT. S. (2022). Enhancing task fMRI preprocessing via individualized model-based filtering of intrinsic activity dynamics. NeuroImage, 247, Article 118836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118836
SnijderJ.TangR.BuggJ.ConwayA. R. A.BraverT. S. (2022). On the psychometric evaluation of cognitive control tasks: An investigation with the Dual Mechanisms of Cognitive Control (DMCC) Battery. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/z7ury
56.
SpeerN. K.JacobyL. L.BraverT. S. (2003). Strategy-dependent changes in memory: Effects on behavior and brain activity. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3(3), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.3758/cabn.3.3.155
57.
SpinelliG.PerryJ. R.LupkerS. J. (2019). Adaptation to conflict frequency without contingency and temporal learning: Evidence from the picture–word interference task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(8), 995–1014. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000656
TangR.EtzelJ. A.KizhnerA.BraverT. S. (2021). Frontoparietal pattern similarity analyses of cognitive control in monozygotic twins. NeuroImage, 241, Article 118415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118415
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
