Control over task conflict in the stroop and affordances tasks: an individual differences study

Reliable affordances: A generative modeling approach for test-retest reliability of the affordances task

The affordances task serves as an important tool for the assessment of cognition and visuomotor functioning, and yet its test-retest reliability has not been established. In the affordances task, participants attend to a goal-directed task (e.g., classifying manipulable objects such as cups and pots) while suppressing their stimulus-driven, irrelevant reactions afforded by these objects (e.g., grasping their handles). This results in cognitive conflicts manifesting at the task level and the response level. In the current study, we assessed the reliability of the affordances task for the first time. While doing so, we referred to the "reliability paradox," according to which behavioral tasks that produce highly replicable group-level effects often yield low test-retest reliability due to the inadequacy of traditional correlation methods in capturing individual differences between participants. Alongside the simple test-retest correlations, we employed a Bayesian generative model that was recently demonstrated to result in a more precise estimation of test-retest reliability. Two hundred and ninety-five participants completed an online version of the affordances task twice, with a one-week gap. Performance on the online version replicated results obtained under in-lab administrations of the task. While the simple correlation method resulted in weak test-retest measures of the different effects, the generative model yielded a good reliability assessment. The current results support the utility of the affordances task as a reliable behavioral tool for the assessment of group-level and individual differences in cognitive and visuomotor functioning. The results further support the employment of generative modeling in the study of individual differences.

An Integrative Model for Understanding Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: Merging Cognitive Behavioral Theory with Insights from Clinical Neuroscience

Several models have been proposed for the emergence and maintenance of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Although these models have provided important insights and inspired treatment development, no single model has yet sufficiently accounted for the complexed phenotype of the disorder. In the current paper, we propose a novel model that integrates elements from cognitive behavioral models of OCD with neurocognitive approaches to the disorder. This Reciprocal Interaction Model (RIM) for OCD is based on two assumptions: (a) similar observed symptoms can stem from different etiological processes; and (b) neuropsychological deficits (such as reduced response inhibition and overreliance on the habit formation system) and cognitive behavioral processes (such as temporary reduction in anxiety after engaging in compulsive behaviors) mutually affect each other such that abnormalities in one system influence the second system and vice-versa-creating a vicious cycle of pathological processes. Indeed, the bidirectional inhibitory connection between anxiety/obsessions and executive control is at the heart of the model. We begin by briefly reviewing the current models for OCD. We then move on to describe the RIM, the supporting evidence for the model, the model's predictions, and potential clinical implications.

Neutral affordances: Task conflict in the affordances task

Task conflict emerges when a stimulus triggers two or more competing tasks. To date, task conflict has been studied mainly using the color-word Stroop task. We hypothesized that task conflict also emerges in the affordances task between the goal-directed relevant task (e.g., classifying manipulable objects such as cups and pots), and the automatic, stimulus-driven, irrelevant task afforded by these objects (e.g., grasping their handles). Thus, we expected task conflict to manifest in both congruent and incongruent trials, separately from the well-known affordances response conflict that manifests in incongruent trials between responding with the right vs. the left hand. To this end, we aimed to identify a neutral condition for the affordances task. In Experiment 1, participants performed an affordances task that included images of manipulable objects and houses. While manipulable objects evoke automatic grasping tendencies, house images were hypothesized to serve as neutral, conflict-free stimuli. House images yielded shorter reaction time (RT) than incongruent trials, indicating that they may serve as neutral stimuli for the task. House images also yielded shorter RT than congruent trials, suggesting that task conflict manifests in congruent (as well as in incongruent) affordances trials. In Experiment 2 we manipulated cognitive control in the affordance task by creating low-control and high-control blocks. While both congruent and incongruent trials were impacted by this manipulation of cognitive control, neutral trials remained unaffected. These findings indicate that the affordances task involves conflicts at both the task level and the level of response, and can be used as a supplementary, non-linguistic measure of task conflict and the activation of task control.