ArticleQuarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006)2026
Transfer of cognitive control adjustments within and between speakers.
Article in Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- No congruency sequence effect across Simon and Eriksen tasks with aligned temporal processing dynamics: Evidence for domain-specific over domain-general cognitive control.Memory & cognition · 2026Article
- Visual dominance of the congruency sequence effect in a cross-modal context.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congruency effects in conflict tasks are typically larger after congruent compared to incongruent trials. This congruency sequence effect (CSE) indicates that top-down adjustments of cognitive control transfer between processing episodes, at least when controlling for bottom-up memory processes by alternating between stimulus-response (S-R) sets in confound-minimised designs. According to the control-retrieval account, cognitive control is bound to task-irrelevant context features (e.g., stimulus position or modality) and retrieved upon subsequent context feature repetitions. A confound-minimised CSE should therefore be larger when context features repeat rather than change between two trials. This study tested this prediction for a more abstract contextual stimulus feature, speaker gender. In two preregistered auditory prime-probe task experiments, participants classified colour words spoken by a female or male voice. Across both experiments, we found confound-minimised CSEs that were not reliably affected by whether the speaker gender repeated or changed. This indicates that speaker transitions have virtually no influence on the transfer of control adjustments in the absence of S-R repetitions. By contrast, when allowing for bottom-up memory processes by repeating the S-R set, CSEs were consistently larger when the speaker gender repeated compared to changed. This suggests that speaker transitions can in principle influence transfer between processing episodes. The discrepancy also held true when considering learning and test episodes separated by an intervening episode. Thus, the present findings call for a refinement of the control-retrieval account to accommodate the role of more abstract contextual stimulus features for the maintenance of memory traces in auditory conflict processing.
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.