Modulation of conflicts in the Stroop effect

Cognitive control controls the effect of irrelevant stimulus-response learning

Research has established that two cognitive processes, cognitive control and irrelevant stimulus-response (S-R) learning, may underlie the proportion congruency effect, which refers to the findings that the size of interference effects (e.g., the Stroop, Simon, or Eriksen flanker effect) reduces with increasing the proportion of incongruent trials. Further studies have begun to investigate the interaction between these two cognitive processes, which not only provide more plausible accounts for empirical data, but also advance theories. The present study set out to investigate whether cognitive control can modulate the effect of irrelevant S-R learning. In two experiments, we combined a color-letter contingency task, in which we manipulated the contingencies (low vs. high) of irrelevant S-R associations, with a color-Chinese character Stroop task, in which we manipulated the ratio of neutral to incongruent trials (mostly neutral (MN) versus mostly incongruent (MI)). Experiment 1 showed a proportion neutral effect (the Stroop effect was smaller in the MI than in the MN condition), suggesting changes in control demand. Critically, the contingency effect (faster responses in the high- than in the low-contingency condition) reduced in the MI than in the MN condition. Experiment 2 (preregistered) increased the number of Chinese characters to exclude a familiarity account for the proportion neutral effect, which replicated the findings of Experiment 1. These results suggest that cognitive control induced in the Stroop task transferred to the contingency task and modulated the contingency effect. Thus, this study provides clear evidence that cognitive control can modulate the effect of irrelevant S-R learning.

Distributional analyses reveal the polymorphic nature of the Stroop interference effect: It's about (response) time

The study addressed the still-open issue of whether semantic (in addition to response) conflict does indeed contribute to Stroop interference (which along with facilitation contributes to the overall Stroop effect also known as Congruency effect). To this end, semantic conflict was examined across the entire response time (RT) distribution (as opposed to mean RTs). Three (out of four) reported experiments, along with cross-experimental analyses, revealed that semantic conflict was absent in the participants' faster responses. This result characterizes Stroop interference as a unitary phenomenon (i.e., driven uniquely by response conflict). When the same participants' responses were slower, Stroop interference became a composite phenomenon with an additional contribution of semantic conflict that was statistically independent of both response conflict and facilitation. While the present findings allow us to account for the fact that semantic conflict has not been consistently found in past studies, further empirical and theoretical efforts are still needed to explain why exactly it is restricted to longer responses. Indeed, since neither unitary nor composite models can account for this polymorphic nature of Stroop interference on their own, the implications for the current state of theory are outlined.

Onset complexity and task conflict in the Stroop task

The present study examined the extent to which a key marker of task conflict, negative facilitation, is modified by onset complexity. Negative facilitation, slower reaction times (RTs) to congruent stimuli than to non-lexical neutral stimuli in the Stroop task, is thought to reflect competition between the task sets of colour naming and word reading in the Stroop task (also known as task conflict). That is, it reflects competition between whole task sets, over and above any competition between specific responses associated with a stimulus. An alternative account of negative facilitation argues that it reflects the specific phonological processing differences between pronounceable (e.g., congruent) and non-pronounceable (e.g., xxxx) stimuli that are magnified by the specific task contexts that produce negative facilitation (a mostly non-lexical trial context). Here we used onset complexity to manipulate pronounceability of the irrelevant words in the Stroop task to test this alternative account. However, before applying manipulations that produce negative facilitation, we initially tested whether there was an effect of onset complexity on Stroop task performance. The results from Experiment(s) 1 (and 3) showed that complex onsets led to larger positive facilitation and congruency effects relative to simple onsets, but did not modify incongruent or neutral-word RTs. Experiment 2 directly tested whether onset complexity modifies negative facilitation and provided strong evidence for no effect of onset complexity, contrary to the alternative account predictions. The implications of the results for task conflict theory, selective attention, and phonological processing in the manual response Stroop task are discussed.

Do Task Sets Compete in the Stroop Task and Other Selective Attention Paradigms?

Task sets have been argued to play an important role in cognition, giving rise to the notions of needing to switch between active task sets and to control competing task sets in selective attention tasks. For example, it has been argued that Stroop interference results from two categories of conflict: informational and task (set) conflict. Informational conflict arises from processing the word and is resolved by a late selection mechanism; task conflict arises when two task sets (i.e., word reading and colour identification) compete for activation and can be construed as involving an early selection mechanism. However, recent work has argued that task set control might not be needed to explain all of the switching cost in task switching studies. Here we consider whether task conflict plays a role in selective attention tasks. In particular, we consider whether S-R associations, which lead to informational conflict, are enough on their own to explain findings attributed to task set conflict. We review and critically evaluate both the findings that provided the original impetus for proposing task conflict in selective attention tasks and more recent findings reporting negative facilitation (longer RTs to congruent than to neutral stimuli) - a unique marker of task conflict. We then provide a tentative alternative account of negative facilitation based on poor control over informational conflict and apply it to a number of paradigms including the Colour-Object interference and Affordances tasks. It is argued that invoking competition between task sets in selective attention tasks might not be necessary.

Common and unique neural mechanisms of social and nonsocial conflict resolving and adaptation

Humans often need to deal with various forms of information conflicts that arise when they receive inconsistent information. However, it remains unclear how we resolve them and whether the brain may recruit similar or distinct brain mechanisms to process different domains (e.g. social vs. nonsocial) of conflicts. To address this, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging and scanned 50 healthy participants when they were asked to perform 2 Stroop tasks with different forms of conflicts: social (i.e. face-gender incongruency) and nonsocial (i.e. color-word incongruency) conflicts. Neuroimaging results revealed that the ventral lateral prefrontal cortex was generally activated in processing incongruent versus congruent stimuli regardless of the task type, serving as a common mechanism for conflict resolving across domains. Notably, trial-based and model-based results jointly demonstrated that the dorsal and rostral medial prefrontal cortices were uniquely engaged in processing social incongruent stimuli, suggesting distinct neural substrates of social conflict resolving and adaptation. The findings uncover that the common but unique brain mechanisms are recruited when humans resolve and adapt to social conflicts.

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.

Is There Semantic Conflict in the Stroop Task?

This research addressed current controversies concerning the contribution of semantic conflict to the Stroop interference effect and its reduction by a single-letter coloring and cueing procedure. On the first issue, it provides, for the first time, unambiguous evidence for a contribution of semantic conflict to the (overall) Stroop interference effect. The reported data remained inconclusive on the second issue, despite being collected in a considerable sample and analyzed with both classical (frequentist) and Bayesian inferential approaches. Given that in all past Stroop studies, semantic conflict was possibly confounded with either response conflict (e.g., when semantic-associative items [SKY_blue] are used to induce semantic conflict) or with facilitation (when color-congruent items [BLUE_blue] are used as baseline to derive a magnitude for semantic conflict), its genuine contribution to the Stroop interference effect is the most critical result reported in the present study. Indeed, it leaves no doubt - in complete contrast to dominant single-stage response competition models (e.g., Roelofs, 2003) - that selection occurs at the semantic level in the Stroop task. The immediate implications for the composite (as opposed to unitary) nature of the Stroop interference effect and other still unresolved issues in the Stroop literature are outlined further.

The loci of Stroop effects: a critical review of methods and evidence for levels of processing contributing to color-word Stroop effects and the implications for the loci of attentional selection

Despite instructions to ignore the irrelevant word in the Stroop task, it robustly influences the time it takes to identify the color, leading to performance decrements (interference) or enhancements (facilitation). The present review addresses two questions: (1) What levels of processing contribute to Stroop effects; and (2) Where does attentional selection occur? The methods that are used in the Stroop literature to measure the candidate varieties of interference and facilitation are critically evaluated and the processing levels that contribute to Stroop effects are discussed. It is concluded that the literature does not provide clear evidence for a distinction between conflicting and facilitating representations at phonological, semantic and response levels (together referred to as informational conflict), because the methods do not currently permit their isolated measurement. In contrast, it is argued that the evidence for task conflict as being distinct from informational conflict is strong and, thus, that there are at least two loci of attentional selection in the Stroop task. Evidence suggests that task conflict occurs earlier, has a different developmental trajectory and is independently controlled which supports the notion of a separate mechanism of attentional selection. The modifying effects of response modes and evidence for Stroop effects at the level of response execution are also discussed. It is argued that multiple studies claiming to have distinguished response and semantic conflict have not done so unambiguously and that models of Stroop task performance need to be modified to more effectively account for the loci of Stroop effects.

Stimulus and response conflict from a second language: Stroop interference in weakly-bilingual and recently-trained languages

The aim of the present manuscript was to investigate the source of congruency effects in weak bilinguals (Experiment 1) and in early language learning (Experiment 2). In both studies, participants performed a bilingual version of a colour-word Stroop task. The standard finding is slower and less accurate responding when the word and colour are incongruent (e.g., "red" in blue) relative to congruent (e.g., "red" in red). This congruency effect occurs for the distracting colour words from both the first and second language. Both stimulus conflict (i.e., conflict between the meaning of the word and ink colour) and response conflict (i.e., conflict between possible response options) contribute to first-language congruency effects. According to some models of early language learning, only one of these two types of conflict should emerge for non-fluent languages. To separate stimulus and response conflict, we used a 2-to-1 keypress assignment manipulation. Interestingly, in one study both stimulus and response conflict were evidenced for the weakly spoken second language (English in native French speakers). In a second study, participants performed a short Croatian colour word learning phase before the Stroop procedure. Stimulus conflict was observed in response times and response conflict in errors for this recently-trained language. These findings suggest that the relatively low-proficient second language words are potent enough to affect semantic identification and response selection.

What happens when right means wrong? The impact of conflict arising from competing feedback responses

Humans often rely on feedback to learn. Indeed, in learning the difference between feedback and an expected outcome is computed to inform future actions. Further, recent work has found that reward and feedback have a unique role in modulating conflict processing and cognitive control. However, it is still not clear how conflict, especially concerning the processing and evaluation of feedback, impacts learning. To address this, we examined the effects of feedback competition on feedback evaluation in a reinforcement learning task. Specifically, we had participants play a simple two-choice gambling game while electroencephalographic (EEG) data were recorded. On half of the experiment blocks, we reversed the meaning of performance feedback for each trial from its prepotent meaning to induce response conflict akin to the Stroop effect (e.g., '✓' meant incorrect). Behaviourally, we found that participants' accuracy was reduced as a result of incongruent feedback. Paralleling this, an analysis of our EEG revealed that incongruent feedback resulted in a reduction in amplitude of the reward positivity and the P300, components of the human event-related brain potential implicated in reward processing. Our results demonstrate the negative impact of conflict on feedback evaluation and the impact of this on subsequent performance.

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

Task conflict is a type of conflict that emerges when a stimulus triggers two or more competing tasks. In the Stroop task, task conflict occurs between the relevant color-naming task and irrelevant word reading task and can be observed mainly on congruent trials, which only involve task conflict and are devoid of additional conflict types. We hypothesized that task conflict also manifests in the affordances task between the relevant task (e.g., classifying manipulatable objects), and the automatic task afforded by the object (e.g., grasping the object), and is mostly evident on congruent trials. Using an individual differences design we assessed the relationship between control mechanisms operating on Stroop congruent and affordances congruent trials under conditions of high and low cognitive control requirements. We hypothesized that task control is employed in both tasks. One-hundred and twenty-three participants performed an affordances task and two blocks of a Stroop task, each requiring a different level of task control (high vs. low). In a hierarchical regression model, we found a significant and specific correlation between affordances congruent and Stroop congruent conditions only in the high-control block, designed to greatly engage participants' task control, thus linking the task control mechanism in both tasks. These results indicate that task control underlies diverse modalities of response (visuomotor and linguistic), independently of other conflict types. We suggest that the affordances task may serve as a supplementary tool for the assessment of task control in the lab.

Priming Emotional Salience Reveals the Role of Episodic Memory and Task Conflict in the Non-color Word Stroop Task

Previous research attempted to account for the emotional Stroop effect based on connectionist models of the Stroop task that implicate conflict in the output layer as the underlying mechanism (e.g., Williams et al., 1996). Based on Kalanthroff et al.’s (2015) proactive-control/task-conflict (PC-TC) model, our study argues that the interference from non-color words (neutral and negative words) is due to task conflict. Using a study-test procedure 120 participants (59 high and 61 low trait anxiety) studied negative and neutral control words prior to being tested on a color responding task that included studied and unstudied words. The results for the low anxiety group show no emotional Stroop effect, but do demonstrate the slowdown in response latencies to a block of studied and unstudied words compared to a block of unstudied words. In contrast, the high anxiety group shows (a) an emotional Stroop effect but only for studied negative words and (b) a reversed sequential modulation in which studied negative words slowed down the color-responding of studied negative words on the next trial. We consider how these findings can be incorporated into the PC-TC model and suggest the interacting role of trait anxiety, episodic memory, and emotional salience driving attention that is based on task conflict.

Pupillometric contributions to deciphering Stroop conflicts

The Stroop task gives rise to two major conflicts: the task conflict (respond to the color vs. read the word) and the information conflict that can result from the stimulus-response compatibility (SRC; difference between two responses) or from the stimulus-stimulus compatibility (SSC; difference between the two contradictive pieces of information). We conducted a two-to-one Stroop experiment (i.e., two colors are mapped to one response key) and measured reaction time and pupil dilation. The results showed clear evidence for informational conflict composed of both the SRC and SSC. In addition, pupil indications for task conflict appeared earlier than indications for both the SSC and the SRC, in line with the theory regarding task conflict.

Task Conflict and Task Control: A Mini-Review

Stimulus-driven behaviors are triggered by the specific stimuli with which they are associated. For example, words elicit automatic reading behavior. When stimulus-driven behaviors are incongruent with one’s current goals, task conflict can emerge, requiring the activation of a task control mechanism. The Stroop task induces task conflict by asking participants to focus on color naming and ignore the automatic, stimulus-driven, irrelevant word reading task. Thus, task conflict manifests in Stroop incongruent as well as in congruent trials. Previous studies demonstrated that when task control fails, reaction times in congruent trials slow down, leading to a reversed facilitation effect. In the present mini-review, we review the literature on the manifestation of task conflict and the recruitment of task control in the Stroop task and present the physiological and behavioral signatures of task control and task conflict. We then suggest that the notion of task conflict is strongly related to the concept of stimulus-driven behaviors and present examples for the manifestation of stimulus-driven task conflict in the Stroop task and additional tasks, including object-interference and affordances tasks. The reviewed literature supports the illustration of task conflict as a specific type of conflict, which is different from other conflict types and may manifest in different tasks and under diverse modalities of response.

Response Time Distribution Analysis of Semantic and Response Interference in a Manual Response Stroop Task

Abstract. Previous analyses of response time distributions have shown that the Stroop effect is observed in the mode (μ) and standard deviation (σ) of the normal part of the distribution, as well as its tail (τ). Specifically, interference related to semantic and response processes has been suggested to specifically affect the mode and tail, respectively. However, only one study in the literature has directly manipulated semantic interference, and none manipulating response interference. The present research aims to address this gap by manipulating both semantic and response interference in a manual response Stroop task, and examining how these components of Stroop interference affect the response time distribution. Ex-Gaussian analysis showed both semantic and response conflict to only affect τ. Analyzing the distribution by rank-ordered response times (Vincentizing) showed converging results as the magnitude of both semantic and response conflict increased with slower response times. Additionally, response conflict appeared earlier on the distribution compared to semantic conflict. These findings further highlight the difficulty in attributing specific psychological processes to different parameters (i.e., μ, σ, and τ). The effect of different response modalities on the makeup of Stroop interference is also discussed.