Between-task transfer of item-specific control is replicable and extends to novel conditions.

Learning-guided control refers to adjustments of cognitive control settings based on learned associations between predictive cues and the likelihood of conflict. In three preregistered experiments, we examined transfer of item-specific control settings beyond conditions under which they were learned. In Experiment 1, an item-specific proportion congruence (ISPC) manipulation was applied in a training phase in which target color in a Flanker task was biased (mostly congruent or mostly incongruent). In a subsequent transfer phase, participants performed a color-word Stroop task in which the same target colors were unbiased (50% congruent). The same design was implemented in Experiment 2, but training and transfer tasks were intermixed within blocks. Between-task transfer was evidenced in both experiments, suggesting learned control settings associated with the predictive cues were retrieved when encountering unbiased transfer items. In Experiment 3, we investigated a farther version of between-task transfer by using training (color-word Stroop) and transfer (picture-word Stroop) tasks that did not share the relevant (to-be-named) dimension or response sets. Despite the stronger, between-task boundary, we observed an ISPC effect for the transfer items, but it did not emerge until the second half of the experiment. The results provided converging evidence for the flexibility and automaticity of item-specific control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Humans do not avoid reactively implementing cognitive control.

The ability to exert cognitive control allows us to achieve goals in the face of distraction and competing actions. However, control is costly-people generally aim to minimize its demands. Because control takes many forms, it is important to understand whether such costs apply universally. Specifically, reactive control, which is recruited in response to stimulus or contextual features, is theorized to be deployed automatically, and not depend on attentional resources. Here, we investigated whether people avoided implementing reactive control in three experiments. In all, participants performed a Stroop task in which certain items were mostly incongruent (MI), that is, associated with a high likelihood of conflict (triggering a focused control setting). Other items were mostly congruent, that is, associated with a low likelihood of conflict (triggering a relaxed control setting). Experiment 1 demonstrated that these control settings transfer to a subsequent unbiased transfer phase. In Experiments 2-3, we used a demand selection task to investigate whether people would avoid choice options that yielded items that were previously MI. In all, participants continued to retrieve focused control settings for previously MI items, but they did not avoid them in the demand selection task. Critically, we only found demand avoidance when there was an objective difference in demand between options. These findings are consistent with the idea that implementing reactive control does not register as costly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Sequence effects and speech processing: cognitive load for speaker-switching within and across accents.

Prior work in speech processing indicates that listening tasks with multiple speakers (as opposed to a single speaker) result in slower and less accurate processing. Notably, the trial-to-trial cognitive demands of switching between speakers or switching between accents have yet to be examined. We used pupillometry, a physiological index of cognitive load, to examine the demands of processing first (L1) and second (L2) language-accented speech when listening to sentences produced by the same speaker consecutively (no switch), a novel speaker of the same accent (within-accent switch), and a novel speaker with a different accent (across-accent switch). Inspired by research on sequential adjustments in cognitive control, we aimed to identify the cognitive demands of accommodating a novel speaker and accent by examining the trial-to-trial changes in pupil dilation during speech processing. Our results indicate that switching between speakers was more cognitively demanding than listening to the same speaker consecutively. Additionally, switching to a novel speaker with a different accent was more cognitively demanding than switching between speakers of the same accent. However, there was an asymmetry for across-accent switches, such that switching from an L1 to an L2 accent was more demanding than vice versa. Findings from the present study align with work examining multi-talker processing costs, and provide novel evidence that listeners dynamically adjust cognitive processing to accommodate speaker and accent variability. We discuss these novel findings in the context of an active control model and auditory streaming framework of speech processing.

Revealing object-based cognitive control in a moving object paradigm.

Object-based attention and flexible adjustments of cognitive control based on contextual cues signaling the likelihood of distraction are well documented. However, no prior research has conclusively demonstrated that people flexibly adjust cognitive control to minimize distraction based on learned associations between task-irrelevant objects and distraction likelihood (i.e., object-based cognitive control). To fill this gap, we developed a novel paradigm during which participants responded to flanker stimuli appearing in one of multiple locations on two simultaneously presented objects. One object predicted a low likelihood of encountering an incongruent flanker stimulus and the other a high likelihood. After each response, the objects rotated clockwise such that all locations on average were 50% congruent, thereby eliminating confounds between location and likelihood of incongruence. Object-based cognitive control was evidenced by reduced flanker compatibility effects in the high compared to low conflict object. Across four experiments, we demonstrated that object-based cognitive control was dependent on a strong manipulation of the likelihood of conflict between objects and movement of the objects between trials. The novel evidence for object-based cognitive control is important in showing that people exploit not only location as a cue to guide control, but additionally objects, mirroring evidence on object and location-based attention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The location-specific proportion congruence effect: Are left/right locations special?

People reactively adjust attentional control based on the history of conflict experiences at different locations resulting in location-specific proportion compatibility (LSPC) effects. Weidler et al. (2022, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 48[4], 312-330) found that LSPC effects were larger when stimuli were presented on the horizontal axis (i.e., locations to left and right of fixation) compared with the vertical axis (i.e., locations above and below fixation). They proposed and provided initial evidence suggesting left/right locations may represent a special design feature that leads to stronger LSPC effects (i.e., horizontal precedence account). However, their use of horizontally oriented flanker stimuli, which required participants to traverse through the distracting flankers to select the central target selectively in the horizontal axis condition, may have contributed to the horizontal advantage they observed (i.e., gaze path account). The present study tested competing predictions of these two accounts. Experiment 1 used vertically oriented flanker stimuli and compared the findings with Weidler et al. The LSPC effect was larger for vertically oriented stimuli on the vertical axis, and horizontally oriented stimuli on the horizontal axis, supporting the gaze path account. Experiment 2 used flanker stimuli that required participants to traverse through distracting flankers regardless of the axis on which stimuli were presented. The LSPC effect was equivalent between the vertical axis and horizontal axis conditions. These results further supported the gaze path account and suggest that the critical design feature for amplifying LSPC effects is not left/right locations per se, but rather use of stimuli/axis combinations that encourage processing of the distractor dimension.

The dominance of item learning in the location-specific proportion congruence paradigm.

Prior research has shown that various cues are exploited to reactively adjust attention, and such adjustments depend on learning associations between cues and proportion congruence. This raises the intriguing question of what will be learned when more than one cue is available, a question that has implications for understanding which cue(s) will dominate in guiding reactive adjustments. Evidence from a picture-word Stroop task demonstrated that item learning dominated over location learning in a location-specific proportion congruence (LSPC) paradigm, a pattern that may explain the difficulty researchers have faced in replicating and reproducing the LSPC effect. One goal was to reproduce this pattern using a non-overlapping two-item set design that more closely matched prior studies, and another goal was to examine generalisability of the pattern to two other tasks. Using a prime-probe, colour-word Stroop task (Experiment 1), and a flanker task (Experiment 2), we again found clear dominance of item learning. In Experiment 3, we attempted to disrupt item learning and promote location learning by using a counting procedure that directed participants' attention to location. Once again, we found the same pattern of item dominance. In addition, in none of the experiments did we find evidence for conjunctive (location-item) learning. Collectively, the findings suggest item learning is neither design- or task-specific; rather, it is robust, reliable, and not easily disrupted. Discussion centres on factors dictating dominance of item- over location-based adjustments and implications for the broader literature on LSPC effects.

Meaningful boundaries create boundary conditions for control.

Recent research demonstrated that control states learned via experience in inducer locations were retrieved in novel, unbiased (i.e., diagnostic) locations positioned nearby. Such transfer has been observed even in the presence of a visual boundary (a line) separating inducer and diagnostic locations. One aim of the present study was to assess whether a meaningful boundary might disrupt retrieval of control states in diagnostic locations. Supporting this possibility, in Experiment 1 learned control states did not transfer from inducer locations superimposed on a university's quad to diagnostic locations superimposed on buildings outside the quad. Similarly, in Experiment 2 transfer was not observed for diagnostic locations positioned on a track outside of the field where inducer locations were positioned; however, transfer was also not observed for diagnostic locations on the field (inside the boundary). The latter finding helped motivate Experiments 3a and 3b, which tackled the second aim by examining whether a meaningful boundary might attenuate learning of control states for inducer locations within the boundary. Consistent with this hypothesis, a CSPC effect was observed only when a meaningful boundary was not present. Taken together, the findings provide evidence that meaningful boundaries influence how conflict experiences are organized during a task thereby impacting learning and transfer of context-specific control states.

The unique effects of relatively recent conflict on cognitive control.

In tasks like Stroop, it is well documented that cognitive control is affected by experiences with past conflict on 2 timescales. The "immediate" timescale is evidenced by congruency sequence effects while the "long" timescale is evidenced by list-wide proportion congruence effects. What remains underspecified is whether relatively recent experiences with conflict (i.e. recent timescale of a few preceding trials) also uniquely affect control and how experiences on different timescales are weighted. We conducted 3 preregistered experiments using a novel Stroop paradigm designed to isolate the effects of the recent timescale and measured cognitive control via diagnostic items. In Experiment 1, we manipulated the level of conflict experienced in the recent timescale within mostly congruent and mostly incongruent lists. Controlling for conflict experiences in the long and immediate timescales, we found that conflict in the recent timescale affected cognitive control and did so similarly across list types. In Experiment 2 we found a boundary condition for the effects of recent conflict -when the recent timescale was preceded by 50% congruent trials, conflict in the recent timescale did not affect cognitive control. Experiment 3 systematically replicated the findings of Experiment 1 and demonstrated that conflict in the recent timescale affected cognitive control even after a long unfilled delay between recent conflict and subsequent diagnostic trials. These novel findings expand understanding of how conflict experiences in the recent timescale affect cognitive control and highlight the need to expand theories of cognitive control to incorporate the recent timescale and its interaction with other timescales. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

What can be learned in a context-specific proportion congruence paradigm? Implications for reproducibility.

Crump and Milliken (2009) reported a context-specific proportion congruence (CSPC) effect for inducer and diagnostic sets, the strongest evidence to date of context-specific control. Attempts to replicate/reproduce this evidence have failed, including Experiment 1. Using a picture-word Stroop task, we tackled the question of how to interpret such failures by testing the consistency hypothesis (Hutcheon & Spieler, 2017) and two novel hypotheses inspired by our theorizing about learning opportunities in the CSPC paradigm. Experiment 2 found a CSPC effect when there was no diagnostic set, supporting the consistency hypothesis. Experiment 3 produced novel evidence for item-PC learning in a CSPC paradigm. In contrast, Experiment 4 did not produce strong evidence for location-item conjunctive learning. Our findings suggest failures to replicate/reproduce the CSPC effect do not necessarily indicate a Type I error or instability but instead may indicate episodic representations were organized based on item and not location. This item-PC learning hypothesis uniquely predicted Experiment 3 findings and accommodates findings of all but one prior attempt to replicate/reproduce the CSPC effect for inducer and diagnostic sets, including Experiment 1. Predicting whether future attempts are successful will require deeper understanding of the factors that promote learning of item-PC versus location-PC associations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).