ReviewFrontiers in psychology2014
The heterogeneous world of congruency sequence effects: an update.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
62 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation (tVNS) enhances conflict-triggered adjustment of cognitive control.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2018Trial
- Beta receptor-mediated modulation of the oddball P3 but not error-related ERP components in humans.Psychopharmacology · 2015Trial
- Changes in Aperiodic (1/f Slope) Activity During a Picture-Word Interference Task: Effects of Congruency and Sequence Manipulations.Psychophysiology · 2026Article
- Gratton effect in the numerical Stroop task is distance dependent.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Deficient executive control in transformer attention.PNAS nexus · 2026Article
- The effects of intelligibility on conflict resolution and monitoring during speech recognition in noise.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Ten years Diffusion Model for Conflict (DMC) tasks: Theoretical foundations, applications, practical recommendations, and open challenges.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Conflict adaptation in a confound-minimized face-word Stroop task: exploring the potential settings of an fMRI-related experiment.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- What is prepared in temporal preparation? A review and a historical appreciation.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Changes in aperiodic (1/bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- A shared temporal window of integration across cognitive control and reinforcement learning paradigms: A correlational study.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Temporal Dynamics and Representational Consequences of the Control of Processing Conflict between Visual Working Memory and Visual Perception.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2025Article
- Stroop task and practice effects demonstrate cognitive dysfunction in long COVID and myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Cognitive control adjustments are dependent on the level of conflict.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Sequence effects and speech processing: cognitive load for speaker-switching within and across accents.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Article
- Cognitive effort and active inference.Neuropsychologia · 2023Article
- Performance-contingent reward increases the use of congruent distracting information.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Cognitive control in adults with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder: a study with event-related potentials.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- On the reliability of behavioral measures of cognitive control: retest reliability of task-inhibition effect, task-preparation effect, Stroop-like interference, and conflict adaptation effect.Psychological research · 2022Article
- Interactive modulations between congruency sequence effects and validity sequence effects.Psychological research · 2022Article
2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congruency sequence effects (CSEs) refer to the observation that congruency effects in conflict tasks are typically smaller following incongruent compared to following congruent trials. This measure has long been thought to provide a unique window into top-down attentional adjustments and their underlying brain mechanisms. According to the renowned conflict monitoring theory, CSEs reflect enhanced selective attention following conflict detection. Still, alternative accounts suggested that bottom-up associative learning suffices to explain the pattern of reaction times and error rates. A couple of years ago, a review by Egner (2007) pitted these two rivalry accounts against each other, concluding that both conflict adaptation and feature integration contribute to the CSE. Since then, a wealth of studies has further debated this issue, and two additional accounts have been proposed, offering intriguing alternative explanations. Contingency learning accounts put forward that predictive relationships between stimuli and responses drive the CSE, whereas the repetition expectancy hypothesis suggests that top-down, expectancy-driven control adjustments affect the CSE. In the present paper, we build further on the previous review (Egner, 2007) by summarizing and integrating recent behavioral and neurophysiological studies on the CSE. In doing so, we evaluate the relative contribution and theoretical value of the different attentional and memory-based accounts. Moreover, we review how all of these influences can be experimentally isolated, and discuss designs and procedures that can critically judge between them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.