Cognitive control abilities include maintaining goal-directed behaviors in spite of the incongruence between habitual and desired responses. In interference paradigms, slower responses to incongruent compared to congruent trials are observed; this interference is reduced after incongruent trials (congruence sequential effect, CSE), suggesting that the control exerted to counteract interference in the previous trial also propagates into the following trial. Moreover, a larger CSE is observed when trial features are repeated. Binding–retrieval accounts suggest that trial features that occur in the same time frame are bound together in an episodic representation; if a feature is repeated in the next trial, the control state that was active in the previous trial is also reactivated, resulting in a modulation of congruence effects. However, previous studies that used stimulus sets characterized by intracategory variability (e.g., faces and scenes) observed CSE modulation by the repetition of response categories but were inconclusive concerning whether repeating the identity of a stimulus may modulate CSE. The present study investigates whether episodic stimulus representations include both stimulus identity and response category information, by comparing the impact of the repetition of novel pictures (no identity repetition) and of frequent pictures (in which identity is repeated over trials) in a picture–word interference task. Results indicated that stimulus identity was not critical in the modulation of CSE, and that CSE was little affected by response–stimulus interval. Altogether, the present results contribute to the understanding and theoretical specification of sequential effects.
AbrahamseE.BraemS.NotebaertW.VergutsT. (2016). Grounding cognitive control in associative learning. Psychological Bulletin, 142(7), 693. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000047
2.
BarchD. M.SheffieldJ. M. (2017). Cognitive control in schizophrenia: Psychological and neural mechanisms. In EgnerT. (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of cognitive control (pp. 556–580). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118920497.ch31
3.
Basar-ErogluC.Schmiedt-FehrC.MarbachS.BrandA.MathesB. (2008). Altered oscillatory alpha and theta networks in schizophrenia. Brain Research, 1235, 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2008.06.114
4.
BotvinickM. M.BraverT. S.BarchD. M.CarterC. S.CohenJ. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624
5.
BraemS.BuggJ. M.SchmidtJ. R.CrumpM. J.WeissmanD. H.NotebaertW.EgnerT. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 769–783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.002
6.
BraemS.VergutsT.NotebaertW. (2011). Conflict Adaptation by Means of Associative Learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(5), 1662–1666. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024385
7.
BuettiS.LlerasA.MooreC. M. (2014). The flanker effect does not reflect the processing of “task-irrelevant” stimuli: Evidence from inattentional blindness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1231–1237. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0602-9
CavanaghJ. F.CohenM. X. (2022) Frontal midline theta as a model specimen of cortical theta. In GableP. A.MillerM. W.BernatE. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of EEG frequency (online ed., pp. 178–201). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780192898340.013.9
10.
CavanaghJ. F.Zambrano-VazquezL.AllenJ. J. (2012). Theta lingua franca: A common mid-frontal substrate for action monitoring processes. Psychophysiology, 49(2), 220–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2011.01293.x
11.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
12.
CohenJ. D. (2017). Cognitive control: Core constructs and current considerations. In EgnerT. (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of cognitive control (1st ed., pp. 1–28). Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118920497.ch1
13.
CohenM. X. (2014). A neural microcircuit for cognitive conflict detection and signaling. Trends in Neurosciences, 37(9), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2014.06.004
14.
CohenM. X.CavanaghJ. F. (2011). Single-trial regression elucidates the role of prefrontal theta oscillations in response conflict. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 30. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00030
15.
CohenM. X.DonnerT. H. (2013). Midfrontal conflict-related theta-band power reflects neural oscillations that predict behavior. Journal of Neurophysiology, 110(12), 2752–2763. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00479.2013
16.
CostaA.MahonB.SavovaV.CaramazzaA. (2003). Level of categorisation effect: A novel effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18(2), 205–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960143000524
17.
CousineauD. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.01.1.p042
18.
De CesareiA.CavicchiS.MicucciA.CodispotiM. (2019). Categorization goals modulate the use of natural scene statistics. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 31(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01333
19.
De CesareiA.D’AscenzoS.NicolettiR.CodispotiM. (2023). Novelty and learning in cognitive control: evidence from the Simon task. Psychological Research, 87(8), 2390–2406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01813-z
20.
Di LolloV.KawaharaJ.ZuvicS. M.VisserT. A. W. (2001). The preattentive emperor has no clothes: A dynamic redressing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(3), 479–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.479
21.
DignathD.KieselA. (2021). Further evidence for the binding and retrieval of control-states from the flanker task. Experimental Psychology, 68(5), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000529
22.
DignathD.JohannsenL.HommelB.KieselA. (2019). Reconciling cognitive-control and episodic-retrieval accounts of sequential conflict modulation: Binding of control-states into event-files. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(9), 1265. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000673
23.
DunawayM. G.WeissmanD. H. (2024). Both congruent and incongruent trials drive the congruency sequence effect: Novel support for an episodic retrieval view of adaptive control in the prime–probe task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001349
24.
DuthooW.AbrahamseE. L.BraemS.NotebaertW. (2014). Going, going, gone? Proactive control prevents the congruency sequence effect from rapid decay. Psychological Research, 78(4), 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0498-4
25.
EgnerT. (2014). Creatures of habit (and control): a multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1247. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01247
26.
EgnerT. (2023). Principles of cognitive control over task focus and task switching. Nature Reviews Psychology, 2(11), 702–714. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-023-00234-4
27.
EgnerT.HirschJ. (2005). Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant information. Nature Neuroscience, 8(12), 1784–1790. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1594
28.
EgnerT.ElyS.GrinbandJ. (2010). Going, going, gone: characterizing the time-course of congruency sequence effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00154
29.
EriksenB. A.EriksenC. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a non-search task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267
30.
FringsC.HommelB.KochI.RothermundK.DignathD.GiesenC.KieselA.KundeW.MayrS.MoellerB.MöllerM.PfisterR.PhilippA. (2020). Binding and retrieval in action control (BRAC). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(5), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.02.004
31.
GlaserW. R.DüngelhoffF.-J. (1984). The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 640–654. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.640
32.
GrantL. D.CerpaS. R.WeissmanD. H. (2022). Rethinking attentional reset: Task sets determine the boundaries of adaptive control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology75(6), 1171–1185. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211047424
33.
GrantL. D.CooksonS. L.WeissmanD. H. (2020). Task sets serve as boundaries for the congruency sequence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46(8), 798. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000750
34.
GrattonG.ColesM. G.DonchinE. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.480
35.
GrattonG.CooperP.FabianiM.CarterC. S.KarayanidisF. (2018). Dynamics of cognitive control: Theoretical bases, paradigms, and a view for the future. Psychophysiology, 55(3), e13016. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13016
36.
HanslmayrS.PastötterB.BäumlK. 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
37.
HantschA.JescheniakJ. D.MädebachA. (2012). Naming and categorizing objects: task differences modulate the polarity of semantic effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 40(5), 760–768. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-012-0184-6
38.
HazeltineE.LightmanE.SchwarbH.SchumacherE. H. (2011). The boundaries of sequential modulations: Evidence for set-level control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1898–1914. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024662
HommelB.FringsC. (2020). The disintegration of event files over time: Decay or interference?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 751–757. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01738-3
41.
HommelB.ProctorR. W.VuK. P. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Research, 68, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-003-0132-y
42.
KahnemanD.TreismanA.GibbsB. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 175–219.
43.
KelberP.MackenzieI. G.MittelstädtV. (2024). Cognitive control in cross-modal contexts: Abstract feature transitions of task-related but not task-unrelated stimuli modulate the congruency sequence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 50(6), 902–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001300
44.
LakensD. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177
45.
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
46.
MacLeodC. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163
47.
MeierM. E.KaneM. J. (2012). Working memory capacity and Stroop interference: global versus local indices of executive control. Journal of Experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(3), 748–759. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029200
NigburR.CohenM. X.RidderinkhofK. R.StürmerB. (2012). Theta dynamics reveal domain-specific control over stimulus and response conflict. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 24(5), 1264–1274. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00128
51.
NigburR.IvanovaG.StürmerB. (2011). Theta power as a marker for cognitive interference. Clinical Neurophysiology, 122(11), 2185–2194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2011.03.030
52.
OlivaA.SchynsP. G. (2000). Diagnostic colors mediate scene recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 41(2), 176–210.
53.
PoldrackR. A. (2011). Inferring mental states from neuroimaging data: from reverse inference to large-scale decoding. Neuron, 72(5), 692–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.11.001
54.
RosinskiR. R. (1977). Picture-word interference is semantically based. Child Development, 48, 643–647. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128667
55.
SchiltenwolfM.KieselA.DignathD. (2022). No temporal decay of cognitive control in the congruency sequence effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 49(8), 1247. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001159
56.
SchmidtJ. R.LiefoogheB. (2016). Feature integration and task switching: Diminished switch costs after controlling for stimulus, response, and cue repetitions. PLoS One, 11(3), e0151188. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151188
57.
SchneiderW.EschmanA.ZuccolottoA. (2002). E-Prime (Version 2.0). [Computer software and manual]. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
58.
SchynsP. G. (1998). Diagnostic recognition: Task constraints, object information, and their interactions. Cognition, 67, 147–179.
59.
SimonJ. R.RudellA. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020586
60.
SpapéM. M.HommelB. (2008). He said, she said: Episodic retrieval induces conflict adaptation in an auditory Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1117–1121. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.6.1117
61.
StroopJ. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054651
62.
van MaanenL.van RijnH.BorstJ. P. (2009). Stroop and picture—word interference are two sides of the same coin. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 987–999. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.6.987
63.
WeissmanD. H.JiangJ.EgnerT. (2014). Determinants of congruency sequence effects without learning and memory confounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(5), 2022–2037.
64.
WesselJ. R. (2018). An adaptive orienting theory of error processing. Psychophysiology, 55(3), e13041. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13041
65.
WhelanR. (2010). Effective analysis of reaction time data. The Psychological Record, 58(3), 475–482.
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.
