Abstracts 2005 - The Psychonomic Society
Abstracts 2005 - The Psychonomic Society
Abstracts 2005 - The Psychonomic Society
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Saturday Noon Posters 4079–4085<br />
incompatible targets. Given these ubiquitous flanker effects, many<br />
have concluded that unattended visual objects are routinely identified<br />
without attention. Lachter, Forster, and Ruthruff (2004), however, recently<br />
demonstrated that the effects of flanking words vanish when<br />
care is taken to prevent those words from capturing attention. Here,<br />
we examine whether the same holds true with much simpler stimuli—<br />
individual letters. With flanker and target letters in different cases<br />
(e.g., A vs. a), unattended flankers had no effect. With flanker and target<br />
letters in the same case (A vs. A), however, small flanker effects<br />
emerged. Taken together, these findings suggest that features, but not<br />
letters, are identified without attention.<br />
• COGNITIVE CONTROL •<br />
(4079)<br />
Conflict-Related Processing Adjustment at Short RSIs: <strong>The</strong> ABI<br />
Effect and Posterror Slowing. INES JENTZSCH, University of St.<br />
Andrews, & HARTMUT LEUTHOLD, University of Glasgow—In short-<br />
RSI situations, participants are usually slower in trial n when the response<br />
alternates in trial n�1. We recently suggested that this alternationbased<br />
interference (ABI) effect results from adjustments following response<br />
conflict in the preceding trial (Jentzsch & Leuthold, <strong>2005</strong>).<br />
Here, we investigate whether the ABI effect is modulated by an error<br />
response on trial n�1. We hypothesized that response alternations, as<br />
well as an error on trial n�1, should produce processing conflicts<br />
leading to changes in subsequent performance. Twelve participants<br />
were tested, using the information reduction paradigm, with four<br />
stimuli assigned to two responses. To control for influences of error<br />
corrections, single- or double-keypress responses with either the same<br />
hand or different hands were required. <strong>The</strong> ABI effect was reversed<br />
in posterror trials, independently of response condition. We therefore<br />
suggest that sequence-related response conflicts at short RSIs can<br />
modify processes underlying top-down adjustments after errors.<br />
(4080)<br />
<strong>The</strong> Impact of Combined Temporal and Nontemporal Constraints<br />
on the Control of a Dynamic Task. MARIE-EVE JOBIDON &<br />
ROBERT ROUSSEAU, Université Laval, & RICHARD BRETON,<br />
Defence R&D Canada—This study aims to understand the role of<br />
temporal and nontemporal contextual constraints in the control of a<br />
dynamic task. From the contextual control model (Hollnagel, 1993),<br />
two temporal parameters are identified: TA and TR, the time available<br />
and required to achieve control. <strong>The</strong> objective is to evaluate how variations<br />
in the objective value of TA and TR (through time pressure and<br />
workload, respectively) influence control and the subjective estimation<br />
of both temporal parameters. A dynamic situation including two subtasks,<br />
the pursuit of a target and the avoidance of hostile contacts, was used.<br />
Results suggest that performance and time estimation be affected by<br />
the combination of the two variables: In some cases, the impact of<br />
time pressure and workload are additive; in others, it is not. Findings<br />
demonstrate that changes in the value of TA and TR can impair the<br />
operator’s ability to control the system and can affect time estimation.<br />
(4081)<br />
Repetition Priming and Cognitive Control in Stroop-Like Tasks.<br />
DIEGO FERNANDEZ-DUQUE & MARYBETH KNIGHT, Villanova<br />
University—In Stroop-like tasks, distraction is often reduced by factors<br />
that warn participants about incoming conflict. <strong>The</strong>re is a heated<br />
debate regarding whether this modulation is due to repetition priming<br />
or enhanced cognitive control. We explored this question in a paradigm<br />
in which color and number Stroop tasks alternated every trial.<br />
Dynamic trial-to-trial changes were fully explained by repetition<br />
priming. In contrast, conflict resolution was truly enhanced in blocks<br />
with disproportionate number of incongruent trials. This modulation<br />
was task specific. Finally, we assessed voluntary modulation of cognitive<br />
control: A cue predicted the congruency of the color Stroop, allowing<br />
subjects to establish the correct mindset. Getting prepared for<br />
an incongruent color enhanced conflict resolution in the number task,<br />
117<br />
an example of across-task modulation. <strong>The</strong>se experiments reveal the<br />
multifaceted aspects of conflict resolution: Trial-to-trial changes are<br />
due to repetition priming, tonic modulations brought about by task demands<br />
are task specific, and voluntary modulations are task general.<br />
(4082)<br />
Sequential Modulations in the Simon Effect Depend on Task Structure.<br />
CAGLAR AKCAY & ELIOT HAZELTINE, University of Iowa<br />
(sponsored by Eliot Hazeltine)—Spatially defined responses to a nonspatial<br />
attribute of a stimulus are faster when the location of the stimulus<br />
is congruent with the response. This effect, called the Simon effect,<br />
depends on contingencies in trial sequence, since after incongruent<br />
trials the effect of congruency diminishes. One account of these sequential<br />
effects presumes a conflict-monitoring mechanism that adjusts<br />
the use of information on the basis of response conflict on the<br />
previous trial. An alternative hypothesis of feature integration draws<br />
upon the effects of repetition and alternation of stimulus–response<br />
episodes. Using a four-choice Simon-type task, we sought to distinguish<br />
between these two accounts. <strong>The</strong> results showed that sequential<br />
effects depend on the task structure, operating presumably within a<br />
task representation. <strong>The</strong> carryover of sequential effects was examined<br />
in further experiments using common stimulus attributes for pairs of<br />
responses or common responses for pairs of stimuli. <strong>The</strong> results are<br />
discussed in terms of the two competing accounts.<br />
(4083)<br />
Stimulus and Response Conflict Induced Cognitive Control in the<br />
Flanker Task. FREDERICK VERBRUGGEN, WIM NOTEBAERT,<br />
BAPTIST LIEFOOGHE, ANDRÉ VANDIERENDONCK, & TOM<br />
VERGUTS, Ghent University—Recently, several studies investigated<br />
the top-down adjustments made after incongruent trials during conflict<br />
tasks. <strong>The</strong> present study investigated conflict monitoring with<br />
different types of conflict. In a modified version of the flanker task, a<br />
distinction was made between stimulus–stimulus conflict and stimulus–<br />
response conflict. Six colors were mapped onto three responses in<br />
order to exclude all sequences where a relevant or irrelevant feature<br />
was repeated from trial n�1 to trial n. Analyses as a function of the<br />
congruency of the previous trial demonstrated that conflict adaptation<br />
was present. <strong>The</strong> stimulus congruency effect was reduced both after<br />
a stimulus-incongruent trial and after a response-incongruent trial.<br />
<strong>The</strong> mere response congruency effect did not vary as a function of previous<br />
congruency. <strong>The</strong>se findings are discussed in relation to the distinction<br />
between conflict detection and conflict regulation.<br />
(4084)<br />
Influence of Complex Distractors in the Remote Distractor Paradigm.<br />
VALERIE BROWN, JOHN M. FINDLAY, & SIMON P. LIVERSEDGE,<br />
University of Durham (sponsored by Simon P. Liversedge)—Three<br />
experiments examined the influence of complex distractors in the remote<br />
distractor effect (RDE) paradigm (Walker, Deubel, Schneider, &<br />
Findlay, 1997). Experiment 1 examined whether different types of distractors<br />
modulated the RDE in any systematic way. Linguistic distractors<br />
produced prolonged SOLs for central versus peripheral presentation.<br />
Nonlinguistic distractors produced equivalent SOLs for central<br />
and peripheral presentation. This unexpected finding was investigated<br />
in Experiment 2, which showed that repeated presentation of a distractor<br />
results in reduced saccade latencies for centrally presented distractors,<br />
regardless of distractor status (i.e., linguistic or nonlinguistic).<br />
In Experiment 3, this was reproduced for same-category repeated and<br />
changing distractors, and a difference in SOLs was obtained between<br />
two types of linguistic distractors at a parafoveal presentation location.<br />
Latencies for single target trials were influenced by the type of distractor<br />
they were presented with. Although SOLs are modulated by distractor<br />
complexity, RDE magnitudes are not.<br />
(4085)<br />
Age-Related Increase in Intraindividual Variability Points to Decline<br />
in Attentional Control. TARA MCAULEY & DESIREE A. WHITE,