ArticleCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2024
A computational account of conflict processing during mental imagery.
Article in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2024. 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.
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
Previous studies examining conflict processing within the context of a color-word Stroop task have focused on both stimulus and response conflicts. However, it has been unclear whether conflict can emerge independently of stimulus conflict. In this study, a novel arrow-gaze mental-rotation Stroop task was introduced to explore the interplay between conflict processing and mental rotation. A modelling approach was utilized to provide a process-level account of the findings. The results of our Stroop task indicate that conflict can emerge from mental rotation in the absence of stimulus conflict. The strength of this imagery conflict effect decreases and even reverses as mental rotation angles increase. Additionally, it was observed that participants responded more quickly and with greater accuracy to small rather than large face orientations. A comparison of three conflict diffusion models-the diffusion model for conflict tasks (DMC), the dual-stage two-phase model (DSTP), and the shrinking spotlight model (SSP)-yielded consistent support for the DSTP over the DMC and SSP in the majority of instances. The DSTP account of the experimental results revealed an increased nondecision time with increasing mental rotation, a reduction in interference from incompatible stimuli, and an improved drift rate in response selection phase, which suggests enhanced cognitive control. The findings from the model-based analysis provide evidence for a novel interaction between cognitive control and mental rotation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39085587What 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.