Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32935289›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2020

Registered Replication Report of Weissman, D. H., Jiang, J., & Egner, T. (2014). Determinants of congruency sequence effects without learning and memory confounds.

Mate Gyurkovics, Marton Kovacs, Matt Jaquiery, Bence Palfi, Filip Dechterenko, Balazs Aczel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Transfer of cognitive control adjustments within and between speakers.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2026
    Article
  3. Changes in aperiodic (1/bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

6 authors.

Mate GyurkovicsBeckman Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 405 N Mathews Ave, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA. mategy@illinois.edu.
Marton KovacsInstitute of Psychology, ELTE, Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary.
Matt JaquieryDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3599-1580
Bence PalfiSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
Filip DechterenkoInstitute of Psychology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic.
Balazs AczelInstitute of Psychology, ELTE, Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The congruency sequence effect (CSE) refers to the finding that the effect of cognitive conflict is smaller following conflicting, incongruent trials than after non-conflicting, congruent trials in conflict tasks, such as the Stroop, Simon, and flanker tasks. This is typically interpreted as an upregulation of cognitive control in response to conflict. Weissman, Jiang, & Egner (2014) investigated whether the CSE appears in these three tasks and a further variant where task-irrelevant distractors precede the target (prime-probe task), in the absence of learning and memory confounds in samples collected online. They found significant CSEs only in the prime-probe and Simon tasks, suggesting that the effect is more robust in tasks where the distractor can be translated into a response faster than the target. In this Registered Replication Report we collected data online from samples approx. 2.5 times larger than in the original study for each of the four tasks to investigate whether the task-related differences in the magnitude of the CSE are replicable (Nmin = 115, Nmax = 130). Our findings extend but do not contradict the original results: Bayesian analyses suggested that the CSE was present in all four tasks in RT but only in the Simon task in accuracy. The size of the effect did not differ between tasks, and the size of the congruency effect was not correlated with the size of the CSE across participants. These findings suggest it might be premature to conclude that the difference in the speed of distractor- vs target-related response activation is a determinant of the size of cross-trial modulations of control. The practical implications of our results for online data collection in cognitive control research are also discussed.

Indexed as

AttentionMemoryBayes TheoremHumansReaction TimeStroop TestCognitive controlCongruency sequence effectOnline data collectionRegistered replication

Identifiers

PMID32935289
PMCPMC7593296

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.