Category learning in the color-word contingency learning paradigm

Release from response interference in color-word contingency learning

In identifying the print colors of words when some combinations of color and word occur more frequently than others, people quickly show evidence of learning these associations. This contingency learning effect is evident in faster and more accurate responses to high-contingency combinations than to low-contingency combinations. Across four experiments, we systematically varied the number of response-irrelevant word stimuli connected to response-relevant colors. In each experiment, one group experienced the typical contingency learning paradigm with three colors linked to three words; other groups saw more words (six or twelve) linked to the same three colors. All four experiments disconfirmed a central prediction derived from the Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP 2.0) model (Schmidt et al., 2016)-that the magnitude of the contingency learning effect should remain stable as more words are added to the response-irrelevant dimension, as long as the color-word contingency ratios are maintained. Responses to high-contingency items did slow down numerically as the number of words increased between groups, consistent with the prediction from PEP 2.0, but these changes were unreliable. Inconsistent with PEP 2.0, however, overall response time did not slow down and responses to low-contingency items actually sped up as the number of words increased across groups. These findings suggest that the PEP 2.0 model should be modified to incorporate response interference caused by high-probability associations when responding to low-probability combinations.

Categorical consistency facilitates implicit learning of color-number associations

In making sense of the environment, we implicitly learn to associate stimulus attributes that frequently occur together. Is such learning favored for categories over individual items? Here, we introduce a novel paradigm for directly comparing category- to item-level learning. In a category-level experiment, even numbers (2,4,6,8) had a high-probability of appearing in blue, and odd numbers (3,5,7,9) in yellow. Associative learning was measured by the relative performance on trials with low-probability (p = .09) to high-probability (p = .91) number colors. There was strong evidence for associative learning: low-probability performance was impaired (40ms RT increase and 8.3% accuracy decrease relative to high-probability). This was not the case in an item-level experiment with a different group of participants, in which high-probability colors were non-categorically assigned (blue: 2,3,6,7; yellow: 4,5,8,9; 9ms RT increase and 1.5% accuracy increase). The categorical advantage was upheld in an explicit color association report (83% accuracy vs. 43% at the item-level). These results support a conceptual view of perception and suggest empirical bases of categorical, not item-level, color labeling of learning materials.

What is cued by faces in the face-based context-specific proportion congruent manipulation?

In a typical context-specific proportion congruent manipulation, participants are presented with Stroop stimuli in one of two contexts. In one context, stimuli are mostly incongruent. In the other context, stimuli are mostly congruent. Despite task-wide instructions to ignore the word and to name the color in which the word appears, the size of the congruency effect varies as a function of context. Specifically, the size of the congruency effect is reduced for the mostly incongruent relative to the mostly congruent context. The purpose of the current series of experiments is to explore the mechanisms underlying this context-specific proportion congruent (CSPC) effect when faces are used as the context. Existing manipulations have reported a face-based CSPC effect, however the results of these studies are confounded with contingency learning biases leaving an open question as to what processes faces serve to cue. In the four experiments reported here both inducer (contingency-biased) and diagnostic (contingency-unbiased) stimuli were included in a face-based context level manipulation. Across four experiments, a face-based CSPC effect is observed for inducer but not diagnostic stimuli, suggesting that this effect is driven by participants learning context + stimulus associations.

Evidence against conflict monitoring and adaptation: An updated review

One of the most influential ideas in recent decades in the cognitive psychology literature is conflict monitoring theory. According to this account, each time we experience a conflict (e.g., between a colour word and print colour in the Stroop task), attentional control is upregulated to minimize distraction on subsequent trials. Though influential, evidence purported to support this theoretical model (primarily, proportion congruent and congruency sequence effects) has been frequently criticized. Furious debate has centered on whether or not conflict monitoring does or does not occur and, if so, under which conditions. The present article presents an updated review of this debate. In particular, the article considers new research that either (a) seems particularly damaging for the conflict monitoring view or (b) seems to provide support for the theory. The author argues that new findings of the latter sort are still not compelling, several of which have already-demonstrated confounds and others which are plausibly confounded. Further progress has, to a greater extent than not, provided even stronger support for the position that conflict monitoring is merely an illusion. Instead, the net results can be more coherently understood in terms of (relatively) simpler learning/memory biases unrelated to conflict or attention that confound the key paradigms.

Reclaiming the Stroop Effect Back From Control to Input-Driven Attention and Perception

According to a growing consensus, the Stroop effect is understood as a phenomenon of conflict and cognitive control. A tidal wave of recent research alleges that incongruent Stroop stimuli generate conflict, which is then managed and resolved by top-down cognitive control. We argue otherwise: control studies fail to account for major Stroop results obtained over a century-long history of research. We list some of the most compelling developments and show that no control account can serve as a viable explanation for major Stroop phenomena and that there exist more parsimonious explanations for other Stroop related phenomena. Against a wealth of studies and emerging consensus, we posit that data-driven selective attention best accounts for the gamut of existing Stroop results. The case for data-driven attention is not new: a mere twenty-five years ago, the Stroop effect was considered “the gold standard” of attention (MacLeod, 1992). We identify four pitfalls plaguing conflict monitoring and control studies of the Stroop effect and show that the notion of top-down control is gratuitous. Looking at the Stroop effect from a historical perspective, we argue that the recent paradigm change from stimulus-driven selective attention to control is unwarranted. Applying Occam’s razor, the effects marshaled in support of the control view are better explained by a selectivity of attention account. Moreover, many Stroop results, ignored in the control literature, are inconsistent with any control account of the effect.

Measuring Adaptive Control in Conflict Tasks

The past two decades have witnessed an explosion of interest in the cognitive and neural mechanisms of adaptive control processes that operate in selective attention tasks. This has spawned not only a large empirical literature and several theories but also the recurring identification of potential confounds and corresponding adjustments in task design to create confound-minimized metrics of adaptive control. The resulting complexity of this literature can be difficult to navigate for new researchers entering the field, leading to suboptimal study designs. To remediate this problem, we present here a consensus view among opposing theorists that specifies how researchers can measure four hallmark indices of adaptive control (the congruency sequence effect, and list-wide, context-specific, and item-specific proportion congruency effects) while minimizing easy-to-overlook confounds.

Disentangling semantic and response learning effects in color-word contingency learning

It is easier to indicate the ink color of a color-neutral noun when it is presented in the color in which it has frequently been shown before, relative to print colors in which it has been shown less often. This phenomenon is known as color-word contingency learning. It remains unclear whether participants actually learn semantic (word-color) associations and/or response (word-button) associations. We present a novel variant of the paradigm that can disentangle semantic and response learning, because word-color and word-button associations are manipulated independently. In four experiments, each involving four daily sessions, pseudowords—such as enas, fatu or imot—were probabilistically associated with either a particular color, a particular response-button position, or both. Neutral trials without color-pseudoword association were also included, and participants’ awareness of the contingencies was manipulated. The data showed no influence of explicit contingency awareness, but clear evidence both for response learning and for semantic learning, with effects emerging swiftly. Deeper processing of color information, with color words presented in black instead of color patches to indicate response-button positions, resulted in stronger effects, both for semantic and response learning. Our data add a crucial piece of evidence lacking so far in color-word contingency learning studies: Semantic learning effectively takes place even when associations are learned in an incidental way.

Cue Competition and Incidental Learning: No Blocking or Overshadowing in the Colour-Word Contingency Learning Procedure Without Instructions to Learn

Overshadowing and blocking are two important findings that are frequently used to constrain models of associative learning. Overshadowing is the finding that learning about a cue (referred to as X) is reduced when that cue is always accompanied by a second cue (referred to as A) during the learning phase (AX). Blocking is the finding that after learning a stimulus-outcome relation for one stimulus (A), learning about a second stimulus (X) is reduced when the second stimulus is always accompanied by the first stimulus (AX). It remains unclear whether overshadowing and blocking result from explicit decision processes (e.g., “I know that A predicts the outcome, so I am not sure whether X does, too”), or whether cue competition is built directly into low-level association formation processes. In that vein, the present work examined whether overshadowing and/or blocking are present in an incidental learning procedure, where the predictive stimuli (words or shapes) are irrelevant to the cover task and merely correlated with the task-relevant stimulus dimension (colour). In two large online studies, we observed no evidence for overshadowing or blocking in this setup: (a) no evidence for an overshadowing cost was observed with compound (word-shape) cues relative to single cue learning conditions, and (b) contingency learning effects for blocked stimuli did not differ from those for blocking stimuli. However, when participants were given the explicit instructions to learn contingencies, evidence for blocking and overshadowing was observed. Together, these results suggest that contingencies of blocked/overshadowed stimuli are learned incidentally, but are suppressed by explicit decision processes due to knowledge of the contingencies for the blocking/overshadowing stimuli.

Context-specific proportion congruent effects: Compound-cue contingency learning in disguise

Conflict between task-relevant and task-irrelevant stimulus information leads to impairment in response speed and accuracy. For instance, in the colour-word Stroop paradigm, participants respond slower and less accurately to the print colour of incongruent colour words (e.g., “red” printed in green) than to congruent colour words (e.g., “green” in green). Importantly, this congruency effect is diminished when the trials in an experiment are mostly incongruent, relative to mostly congruent, termed a proportion congruent effect. When distracting stimuli are mostly congruent in one context (e.g., location or font) but mostly incongruent in another context (e.g., another location or font), the congruency effect is still diminished in the mostly incongruent context, termed a context-specific proportion congruent (CSPC) effect. Both the standard proportion congruent and CSPC effects are typically interpreted in terms of conflict-driven attentional control, frequently termed conflict adaptation or conflict monitoring. However, in two experiments, we investigated contingency learning confounds in context-specific proportion congruent effects. In particular, two variants of a dissociation procedure are presented with the font variant of the CSPC procedure. In both, robust contingency learning effects were observed. No evidence for context-specific control was observed. In fact, results trended in the wrong direction. In all, the results suggest that CSPC effects may not be a useful way of studying attentional control.