ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2018
Effector system-specific sequential modulations of congruency effects.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conflict adaptation in a confound-minimized face-word Stroop task: exploring the potential settings of an fMRI-related experiment.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Motor demands influence conflict processing in a mouse-tracking Simon task.Psychological research · 2023Article
- A tutorial on using the paired t test for power calculations in repeated measures ANOVA with interactions.Behavior research methods · 2023Article
- Cognitive control mechanisms in language processing: are there both within- and across-task conflict adaptation effects?Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2023Article
- Response mode modulates the congruency sequence effect in spatial conflict tasks: evidence from aimed-movement responses.Psychological research · 2021Article
- Introspection about backward crosstalk in dual-task performance.Psychological research · 2021Article
- The congruency sequence effect in a modified prime-probe task indexes response-general control.Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance · 2020Article
- Measuring Adaptive Control in Conflict Tasks.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2019Review
- Smaller backward crosstalk effects for free choice tasks are not the result of immediate conflict adaptation.Cognitive processing · 2019Article
- Monitoring and control in multitasking.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congruency effects in conflict tasks are reliably reduced after experiencing conflict, that is, following incongruent trials. Such sequential modulations (sometimes referred to as the Gratton effect) indicate the operation of conflict adaptation mechanisms. The influential conflict monitoring hypothesis suggested that after conflict the processing of relevant stimulus dimensions is increased. Alternatively, it was suggested that the influence of automatic response activation is suppressed following conflict. In two experiments, participants worked on the same cognitive task (Experiment 1: Eriksen flanker; Experiment 2: Simon) with the same kind of stimulation. A cue indicated whether they should respond with the hands or the feet. When the effector system repeated from the previous trial, a sequential modulation was reliably observed. When the effector system switched, however, the sequential modulation collapsed. These results are taken to argue for the suppression of effector system-specific response activations as a consequence of experiencing conflict. Alternative interpretations in terms of task-set and/or context switches are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28608004What 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.