RESUMEN
According to most accounts of executive control, resisting distraction requires enhancing task-relevant processing, reducing task-irrelevant processing, or both. Consistent with this view, the congruency effect in Stroop-like tasks-a putative measure of distraction-is often smaller after highly distracting incongruent trials than after less distracting congruent trials. Competing accounts of executive control, however, differ on which aspect of an incongruent trial triggers this congruency sequence effect (CSE). The activation-suppression account posits the activation of an incorrect response. In contrast, the response cueing account posits identifying stimuli that cue multiple responses. To distinguish between these accounts, we conducted 2 experiments involving a modified prime-probe task wherein participants respond to the distracter in occasional catch trials. We found that the CSE is triggered by identifying stimuli that cue multiple responses, rather than by the activation of an incorrect response. Further, we observed this effect while ruling out an alternative "response conflict" trigger. These findings are more consistent with the response cueing account than with the activation-suppression account. (PsycINFO Database Record
Asunto(s)
Atención/fisiología , Conflicto Psicológico , Señales (Psicología) , Función Ejecutiva/fisiología , Desempeño Psicomotor/fisiología , Adolescente , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
The congruency effect observed in distracter interference tasks is usually smaller after incongruent relative to congruent trials. However, the nature of control processes underlying this congruency sequence effect (CSE) remains a topic of active debate. For example, while some researchers have suggested that these processes are recruited only when participants utilize the same response mode (e.g., the same hand) to respond in consecutive trials, others have argued that these processes can operate independently of response mode. To distinguish between these views, we investigated whether changes of response mode across consecutive trials influence the CSE in a prime-probe task (Experiment 1) or a flanker task (Experiment 2). Such changes did not influence the CSE in either task. Further, the CSE was significant even when participants utilized different response modes (i.e., different hands) to respond in consecutive trials. These findings indicate that control processes underlying the CSE can operate independently of response mode and thereby clarify the nature of control processes that minimize distraction from irrelevant stimuli.