Changes in the level of conflict trigger conflict adaptation

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.00128

Abstract

Abstract:

Conflict adaptation is an important phenomenon, as the interference effect on the current trials is reduced following incongruent versus congruent trials. Moreover, conflict adaptation effect (CAE) is thought to measure adaptive control on a trial-by-trial basis. There are two main theories explaining the mechanisms underlying CAE: conflict monitoring theory and adaptation by binding theory. However, both theories have not explicitly proposed a clear relationship between conflict strength and cognitive control adjustment. Previous studies have mostly focused on the type of conflict that triggers CAE, which reflected qualitative analysis. Hence, it remains unclear whether changes in the level of conflict of the same conflict type affect conflict adaptation.

To address the above issue, the present study recruited 31 healthy participants with a mean age of 19.74 years to perform the variant of the letter flanker task without feature repetitions. Each stimulus was composed of “F/H/N/P” letter components and arranged in a way that a central target letter was flanked by symmetric arrays of two distracter letters. Experiment manipulated the level of conflict by parametrically varying the target-distracter compatibility. Flankers were 100% compatible with the central target for no-conflict condition (e.g., NNNNN), 50% for low-conflict condition (e.g., HNNNH), and 0% for high-conflict condition (e.g., HHNHH). Congruent stimuli were presented on 50% of trials with each incongruent condition occurring equally often on the remaining 50% of trials.

Results showed that reaction times (RTs) increased with the number of incompatible flankers, suggesting a correlation with the level of conflict. Moreover, the interaction between previous trial congruency (no-conflict/low-conflict/high-conflict) and current trial congruency (no-conflict/low-conflict/high-conflict) was significant, which suggested that congruency of previous trials affected the interference effect of current trials. Follow-up analyses revealed that there were classic conflict adaptation phenomena between no-conflict and low-conflict, no-conflict and high-conflict, and low-conflict and high-conflict conditions. These results showed that conflict adaptation was also triggered by the level of conflict in addition to the occurrence of the conflict. Overall, the present study demonstrated that the conflict strength of previous trials was related to the cognitive control level of current trials, showing that larger conflict led to stronger cognitive control adjustment. In addition, the function of conflict-induced cognitive control may be realized by attentional focusing.

In conclusion, the present study emphasizes that changes in the level of conflict could trigger conflict adaptation, which provides more direct support for attention adjustment mechanism of conflict monitoring theory. Combining the existing researches, we infer that conflict monitoring is sensitive to the type and level of conflict, and adjusts the level of cognitive control to facilitate conflict resolution.

Key words: cognitive control, level of conflict, conflict adaptation, attentional focusing

ZHANG Mengke, LI Qing, YIN Shouhang, CHEN Antao. (2021). Changes in the level of conflict trigger conflict adaptation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(2), 128-138.

Figures/Tables 4

References 42

[1]	Algom, D., & Chajut, E. (2019). Reclaiming the Stroop effect back from control to input-driven attention and perception. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1683. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01683 URL pmid: 31428008
[2]	Botvinick, M. M. (2007). Conflict monitoring and decision making: Reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulate function. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 356-366.
[3]	Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624-652. URL pmid: 11488380
[4]	Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitoring and anterior cingulate cortex: An update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(12), 539-546. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.10.003 URL pmid: 15556023
[5]	Botvinick, M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature, 402(6758), 179-181. URL pmid: 10647008
[6]	Braem, S., Bugg, J. M., Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J. C., Weissman, D. H., Notebaert, W., & Egner, T. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(9), 769-783. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.002 URL pmid: 31331794
[7]	Chiu, Y. -C., & Egner, T. (2019). Cortical and subcortical contributions to context-control learning. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 99, 33-41. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.01.019 URL pmid: 30685484
[8]	Clayson, P. E., & Larson, M. J. (2011). Conflict adaptation and sequential trial effects: Support for the conflict monitoring theory. Neuropsychologia, 49(7), 1953-1961. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.03.023 URL pmid: 21435347
[9]	Danielmeier, C., Wessel, J. R., Steinhauser, M., & Ullsperger, M. (2009). Modulation of the error-related negativity by response conflict. Psychophysiology, 46(6), 1288-1298. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00860.x URL pmid: 19572907
[10]	Dignath, D., Johannsen, L., Hommel, B., & Kiesel, A. (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), 1265-1270. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000673 URL pmid: 31380673
[11]	Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(10), 374-380. URL pmid: 18760657
[12]	Egner, T. (2014). Creatures of habit (and control): A multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1247. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01247 URL pmid: 25414679
[13]	Egner, T., Delano, M., & Hirsch, J. (2007). Separate conflict-specific cognitive control mechanisms in the human brain. NeuroImage, 35(2), 940-948. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.11.061 URL pmid: 17276088
[14]	Egner, T., Jamieson, G., & Gruzelier, J. (2005). Hypnosis decouples cognitive control from conflict monitoring processes of the frontal lobe. NeuroImage, 27(4), 969-978. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.05.002 URL pmid: 15964211
[15]	Eriksen, C. W., & Schultz, D. W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results. Perception & Psychophysics, 25(4), 249-263. doi: 10.3758/bf03198804 URL pmid: 461085
[16]	Eriksen, C. W., & ST. James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40(4), 225-240. doi: 10.3758/bf03211502 URL pmid: 3786090
[17]	Flowers, J. H. (1980). Response priming effects in a digit naming task as a function of target-noise separation. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 16(6), 443-446. doi: 10.3758/BF03329593 URL
[18]	Forster, S. E., Carter, C. S., Cohen, J. D., & Cho, R. Y. (2011). Parametric manipulation of the conflict signal and control-state adaptation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(4), 923-935. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21458 URL
[19]	Funes, M. J., Lupiáñez, J., & Humphreys, G. (2010). Analyzing the generality of conflict adaptation effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(1), 147-161. doi: 10.1037/a0017598 URL pmid: 20121301
[20]	Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480-506. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.121.4.480 URL
[21]	Grundy, J. G., & Shedden, J. M. (2014). A role for recency of response conflict in producing the bivalency effect. Psychological Research, 78(5), 679-691. doi: 10.1007/s00426-013-0520-x URL pmid: 24146081
[22]	Kerns, J. G. (2006). Anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex activity in an FMRI study of trial-to-trial adjustments on the Simon task. NeuroImage, 33(1), 399-405. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.06.012 URL pmid: 16876434
[23]	Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald III, A. W., Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303(5660), 1023-1026. doi: 10.1126/science.1089910 URL pmid: 14963333
[24]	Kim, C., Chung, C., & Kim, J. (2010). Multiple cognitive control mechanisms associated with the nature of conflict. Neuroscience Letters, 476(3), 156-160. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2010.04.019 URL pmid: 20399838
[25]	Kim, C., Kroger, J. K., & Kim, J. (2011). A functional dissociation of conflict processing within anterior cingulate cortex. Human Brain Mapping, 32(2), 304-312. doi: 10.1002/hbm.21020 URL pmid: 21229616
[26]	Liu, P. D., Chen, A. T., Li, C., Li, H., & West, R. (2012). Conflict adaptation is reflected by response interference. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 457-467. doi: 10.1080/20445911.2011.651080 URL
[27]	Liu, P. -D., Yang, W. -J., Tian, X., & Chen, A. -T. (2012). An overview of current studies about the conflict adaptation effect. Advances in Psychological Science, 20(4), 532-541.
[28]	Mayr, U., & Awh, E. (2009). The elusive link between conflict and conflict adaptation. Psychological Research, 73(6), 794-802. doi: 10.1007/s00426-008-0191-1 URL pmid: 19034501
[29]	Notebaert, W., Gevers, W., Verbruggen, F., & Liefooghe, B. (2006). Top-down and bottom-up sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 112-117. doi: 10.3758/bf03193821 URL pmid: 16724777
[30]	Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2006). Stimulus conflict predicts conflict adaptation in a numerical flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(6), 1078-1084. doi: 10.3758/bf03213929 URL pmid: 17484439
[31]	Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2011). Conflict and error adaptation in the Simon task. Acta Psychologica, 136(2), 212-216. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.05.006 URL pmid: 21420518
[32]	Rajkowski, J., Kubiak, P., & Aston-Jones, G. (1993). Correlations between locus coeruleus (LC) neural activity, pupil diameter and behavior in monkey support a role of LC in attention. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 19, 974.
[33]	Rey-Mermet, A., & Meier, B. (2014). More conflict does not trigger more adjustment of cognitive control for subsequent events: A study of the bivalency effect. Acta Psychologica, 145, 111-117. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.11.005 URL pmid: 24333810
[34]	Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662. doi: 10.1037/h0054651 URL
[35]	Takezawa, T., & Miyatani, M. (2005). Quantitative relation between conflict and response inhibition in the flanker task. Psychological Reports, 97(2), 515-526. doi: 10.2466/pr0.97.2.515-526 URL pmid: 16342579
[36]	Ullsperger, M., Bylsma, L. M., & Botvinick, M. M. (2005). The conflict adaptation effect: It’s not just priming. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(4), 467-472.
[37]	Verbruggen, F., Notebaert, W., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Stimulus- and response-conflict-induced cognitive control in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(2), 328-333. doi: 10.3758/bf03193852 URL pmid: 16893003
[38]	Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115(2), 518-525. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.518 URL pmid: 18426302
[39]	Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2009). Adaptation by binding: A learning account of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13(6), 252-257. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.02.007 URL
[40]	Weissman, D. H., Egner, T., Hawks, Z., & Link, J. (2015). The congruency sequence effect emerges when the distracter precedes the target. Acta Psychologica, 156, 8-21. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.01.003 URL pmid: 25616120
[41]	Weissman, D. H., Jiang, J., & Egner, T. (2014). Determinants of congruency sequence effects without learning and memory confounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(5), 2022-2037. doi: 10.1037/a0037454 URL pmid: 25089574
[42]	Wendt, M., Kiesel, A., Geringswald, F., Purmann, S., & Fischer, R. (2014). Attentional adjustment to conflict strength: Evidence from the effects of manipulating flanker-target SOA on response times and prestimulus pupil size. Experimental Psychology, 61(1), 55-67. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000227 URL pmid: 24149239

Previous trial congruency	Current trial congruency
Previous trial congruency	NC	LC	HC
NC	701.58 (65.86)	763.27 (72.44)	772.42 (78.31)
NC	3.36 (2.83)	4.03 (2.96)	3.68 (3.56)
LC	706.88 (67.91)	722.55 (70.05)	768.02 (71.22)
LC	2.64 (2.72)	3.68 (4.94)	3.76 (4.68)
HC	724.61 (69.82)	755.61 (73.33)	758.88 (65.31)
HC	3.09 (2.97)	3.94 (4.64)	3.77 (3.83)

Previous trial congruency	Current trial congruency
Previous trial congruency	NC	LC	HC
NC	701.58 (65.86)	763.27 (72.44)	772.42 (78.31)
NC	3.36 (2.83)	4.03 (2.96)	3.68 (3.56)
LC	706.88 (67.91)	722.55 (70.05)	768.02 (71.22)
LC	2.64 (2.72)	3.68 (4.94)	3.76 (4.68)
HC	724.61 (69.82)	755.61 (73.33)	758.88 (65.31)
HC	3.09 (2.97)	3.94 (4.64)	3.77 (3.83)

Interactions	df	F	p	η_p²	CAE mode
3 (NC, LC, HC) × 3 (NC, LC, HC)	4,120	13.06***	<0.001	0.30
3 (NC, LC, HC) × 2 (NC, LC)	2,60	19.70***	<0.001	0.40
2 (NC, LC) × 2 (NC, LC)	1,30	35.43***	<0.001	0.54	classic
2 (NC, HC) × 2 (NC, LC )	1,30	22.86***	<0.001	0.43	classic
2 (LC, HC) × 2 (NC, LC)	1,30	3.55	0.069	0.11	reverse trend
3 (NC, LC, HC) × 2 (NC, HC)	2,60	10.43***	<0.001	0.26
2 (NC, LC) × 2 (NC, HC)	1,30	1.17	0.287	0.04	no
2 (NC, HC) × 2 (NC, HC)	1,30	25.08***	<0.001	0.46	classic
2 (LC, HC) × 2 (NC, HC)	1,30	9.90**	0.004	0.25	classic
3 (NC, LC, HC) × 2 (LC, HC)	2,60	11.06***	<0.001	0.27
2 (NC, LC) × 2 (LC, HC)	1,30	11.97**	0.002	0.29	reverse
2 (NC, HC) × 2 (LC, HC)	1,30	<1	0.529	0.01	no
2 (LC, HC) × 2 (LC, HC)	1,30	20.22***	<0.001	0.40	classic

Interactions	df	F	p	η_p²	CAE mode
3 (NC, LC, HC) × 3 (NC, LC, HC)	4,120	13.06***	<0.001	0.30
3 (NC, LC, HC) × 2 (NC, LC)	2,60	19.70***	<0.001	0.40
2 (NC, LC) × 2 (NC, LC)	1,30	35.43***	<0.001	0.54	classic
2 (NC, HC) × 2 (NC, LC )	1,30	22.86***	<0.001	0.43	classic
2 (LC, HC) × 2 (NC, LC)	1,30	3.55	0.069	0.11	reverse trend
3 (NC, LC, HC) × 2 (NC, HC)	2,60	10.43***	<0.001	0.26
2 (NC, LC) × 2 (NC, HC)	1,30	1.17	0.287	0.04	no
2 (NC, HC) × 2 (NC, HC)	1,30	25.08***	<0.001	0.46	classic
2 (LC, HC) × 2 (NC, HC)	1,30	9.90**	0.004	0.25	classic
3 (NC, LC, HC) × 2 (LC, HC)	2,60	11.06***	<0.001	0.27
2 (NC, LC) × 2 (LC, HC)	1,30	11.97**	0.002	0.29	reverse
2 (NC, HC) × 2 (LC, HC)	1,30	<1	0.529	0.01	no
2 (LC, HC) × 2 (LC, HC)	1,30	20.22***	<0.001	0.40	classic