Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25414679›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2014

Creatures of habit (and control): a multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects.

Tobias Egner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 102 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
102citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

102 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The puzzle of profitless pre-cues.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Learning-based cognitive control in ADHD: a multicentric study.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Transfer of cognitive control adjustments within and between speakers.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. When forewarned is not forearmed: No evidence for cue-based proactive control in the spatial Stroop task.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Does an external distractor interfere with the triggering of item-specific control?Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Beyond stimulus-response rules: Task sets incorporate information about performance difficulty.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

42 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Tobias EgnerCenter for Cognitive Neuroscience, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience , Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

Characterizing neural mechanisms of cognitive controlR01MH087610 · NIMH · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI EGNER, TOBIAS · 2010 to 2018
$2.5M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH087610
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The congruency sequence effect (CSE) describes the finding that congruency effects in classic probes of selective attention (like the Stroop, Simon, and flanker tasks) are smaller following an incongruent than following a congruent trial. The past two decades have generated a large literature on determinants and boundary conditions for the CSE and similar, congruency-proportion based modulations of congruency effects. A prolonged and heated theoretical discussion has been guided primarily by a historically motivated dichotomy between "top-down control" versus "associative bottom-up" explanations for these effects. In the present article, I attempt to integrate and contextualize the major empirical findings in this field by arguing that CSEs (and related effects) are best understood as reflecting a composite of multiple levels of learning that differ in their level of abstraction. Specifically, learning does not only involve the trial-by-trial encoding, binding, and cued retrieval of specific stimulus-response associations, but also of more abstract trial features. Moreover, these more abstract trial or event features can be both external, such as the spatial and temporal context in which a stimulus occurs, as well as internal, like the experience of difficulty, and the attentional control settings that were employed in dealing with the stimulus. From this perspective, top-down control and bottom-up priming processes work in concert rather than in opposition. They represent different levels of abstraction in the same learning scheme and they serve a single, common goal: forming memory ensembles that will facilitate fast and appropriate responding to recurring stimuli or events in the environment.

Indexed as

attentioncognitive controlconflict adaptationcongruency sequence effectcontingency learningfeature integrationmemoryproportion congruent effect

Identifiers

PMID25414679
PMCPMC4222221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.