Success versus failure in cognitive control: Meta-analytic evidence from neuroimaging studies on error processing

Brain mechanisms of error processing have often been investigated using response interference tasks and focusing on the posterior medial frontal cortex, which is also implicated in resolving response conflict in general. Thereby, the role other brain regions may play has remained undervalued. Here, activation likelihood estimation meta-analyses were used to synthesize the neuroimaging literature on brain activity related to committing errors versus responding successfully in interference tasks and to test for commonalities and differences. The salience network and the temporoparietal junction were commonly recruited irrespective of whether responses were correct or incorrect, pointing towards a general involvement in coping with situations that call for increased cognitive control. The dorsal posterior cingulate cortex, posterior thalamus, and left superior frontal gyrus showed error-specific convergence, which underscores their consistent involvement when performance goals are not met. In contrast, successful responding revealed stronger convergence in the dorsal attention network and lateral prefrontal regions. Underrecruiting these regions in error trials may reflect failures in activating the task-appropriate stimulus-response contingencies necessary for successful response execution.

Stimulus-response compatibility effects during object semantic categorisation: Evocation of grasp affordances or abstract coding of object size?

When the size of visual objects matches the size of the response required to perform the task, a potentiation effect has been reported, with faster responses in compatible than incompatible situations. Size compatibility effects have been taken as evidence of close perception-action interrelations. However, it is still unclear whether the effect arises from abstract coding of the size of stimulus and response or from the evocation of grasp affordances from visual objects. We aimed to disentangle the two interpretations. Two groups of 40 young adults categorised small and large objects presented in standardised size as natural or artefact objects. One group categorised manipulable objects that may be associated with small or large size properties and evoke power or precision grasp affordances. The other group categorised non-manipulable objects that may only be associated with small or large size properties. Categorisation responses were made by reaching and grasping a monotonic cylindric device with a power or precision grip in a grasping condition and with large or small touch responses in a control condition. Compatibility effects were found in both grasping and control conditions, independently of the manipulability or category of objects. Participants were faster when the size of the expected response matched the size of the object than when they mismatched, especially for power grasps or whole-hand touch responses. Overall findings support the abstract coding hypothesis and suggest that compatibility between the conceptual size of the object and the size of the hand response is sufficient to facilitate semantic categorisation judgements.

Compatibility effects with touchless gestures

Human actions are suspect to various compatibility phenomena. For example, responding is faster to the side where a stimulus appears than to the opposite side, referred to as stimulus-response (S-R) compatibility. This is even true, if the response is given to a different stimulus feature, while location itself is irrelevant (Simon compatibility). In addition, responses typically produce perceivable effects on the environment. If they do so in a predictable way, responses are faster if they produce a (e.g., spatially) compatible effect on the same side than on the other side. That it, a left response is produced faster if it results predictably in a left effect than in a right effect. This effect is called response-effect (R-E) compatibility. Finally, compatibility could also exist between stimuli and the effects, which is accordingly called stimulus-effect (S-E) compatibility. Such compatibility phenomena are also relevant for applied purposes, be it in laparoscopic surgery or aviation. The present study investigates Simon and R-E compatibility for touchless gesture interactions. In line with a recent study, no effect of R-E compatibility was observed, yet irrelevant stimulus location yielded a large Simon effect. Touchless gestures thus seem to behave differently with regard to compatibility phenomena than interactions via (other) tools such as levers.

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.

The social Simon effect in the tactile sensory modality: a negative finding

This study seeks to investigate whether users activate cognitive representations of their partner's action when they are involved in tactile collaborative tasks. The social Simon effect is a spatial stimulus-response interference induced by the mere presence of a partner in a go/nogo task. It has been extensively studied in the visual and auditory sensory modalities, but never before in the tactile modality. We compared the performances of 28 participants in three tasks: (1) a standard Simon task where participants responded to two different tactile stimuli applied to their fingertips with either their left or right foot, (2) an individual go/nogo task where participants responded to only one stimulus and (3) a social go/nogo task where they again responded to only one stimulus, but were partnered with another person who responded to the complementary stimulus. The interference effect due to spatial incongruence between the side where participants received the stimulus and the foot used to answer increased significantly in the standard Simon task compared to the social go/nogo task. Such a difference was not observed between the social and individual go/nogo tasks. Performances were nevertheless enhanced in the social go/nogo task, but irrespectively of the stimulus-response congruency. This study is the first to report a negative result for the social Simon effect in the tactile modality. Results suggest that cognitive representation of the co-actor is weaker in this modality.

Affective influences without approach-avoidance actions: on the congruence between valence and stimulus-response mappings

The valence of stimuli can influence performance in the spatial stimulus-response compatibility task, but this observation could arise from the process of selecting responses or selecting stimulus-response mappings. The response-selection account proposes that spatial compatible and incompatible keypress responses serve as approaching and avoiding actions to a valenced target. The mapping-selection account suggests that there is congruence between stimulus valence and stimulus-response mappings; positive-compatible/negative-incompatible is more congruent than negative-compatible/positive-incompatible. Whereas affective valence was part of the target stimuli to which participants responded in previous studies, the present study isolated affective valence from the target by presenting an additional mapping cue separately from the target, so that spatially compatible and incompatible keypress responses could no longer serve as approaching and avoiding actions to valenced target stimuli. The present results revealed that responses were still faster when positive and negative mapping cues were assigned to the spatially compatible and incompatible mappings than when the assignment was reversed. The finding supports the mapping-selection account, indicating that positive and negative cues influence performance without approach-avoidance actions to valenced stimuli. The experiment provides important implications as to how tasks are represented and are dependent on affective processing.

The effect of grasp compatibility in go/no-go and two-choice tasks

The grasp compatibility effect has been put forward as evidence for the automatic involvement of the motor system during mental object representation. In three experiments, participants responded to object pictures or names by grasping cylinders using a precision or power grasp. In a two-choice task in which both grasps were used, we obtained grasp compatibility effects, but in a go/no-go task, in which only one grasp was used, there was no effect. These results indicate that the effect depends on the availability of response choice, in the present case, different size grasps. This suggests that grasp compatibility effects are better explained by coding of the stimulus and response on the same dimension, size, rather than automatic activation of a motor action towards the object.

Contributions of expected sensory and affective action effects to action selection and performance: Evidence from forced- and free-choice tasks

Whereas ideomotor approaches to action control emphasize the importance of sensory action effects for action selection, motivational approaches emphasize the role of affective action effects. We used a game-like experimental setup to directly compare the roles of sensory and affective action effects in selecting and performing reaching actions in forced- and free-choice tasks. The two kinds of action effects did not interact. Action selection and execution in the forced-choice task were strongly impacted by the spatial compatibility between actions and the expected sensory action effects, whereas the free-choice task was hardly affected. In contrast, action execution, but not selection, in both tasks was strongly impacted by the spatial compatibility between actions and highly valued action effects. This pattern suggests that sensory and affective action effects serve different purposes: The former seem to dominate rule-based action selection, whereas the latter might serve to reduce any remaining action uncertainty.

Best not to bet on the horserace: A comment on Forrin and MacLeod (2017) and a relevant stimulus-response compatibility view of colour-word contingency learning asymmetries

One powerfully robust method for the study of human contingency learning is the colour-word contingency learning paradigm. In this task, participants respond to the print colour of neutral words, each of which is presented most often in one colour. The contingencies between words and colours are learned, as indicated by faster and more accurate responses when words are presented in their expected colour relative to an unexpected colour. In a recent report, Forrin and MacLeod (2017b, Memory & Cognition) asked to what extent this performance (i.e., response time) measure of learning might depend on the relative speed of processing of the word and the colour. With keypress responses, learning effects were comparable when responding to the word and to the colour (contrary to predictions). However, an asymmetry appeared in a second experiment with vocal responses, with a contingency effect only present for colour identification. In a third experiment, the colour was preexposed, and contingency effects were again roughly symmetrical. In their report, they suggested that a simple speed-of-processing (or "horserace") model might explain when contingency effects are observed in colour and word identification. In the present report, an alternative view is presented. In particular, it is argued that the results are best explained by appealing to the notion of relevant stimulus-response compatibility, which also resolves discrepancies between horserace model predictions and participant results. The article presents simulations with the Parallel Episodic Processing model to demonstrate this case.

Do silhouettes and photographs produce fundamentally different object-based correspondence effects?

When participants classify pictures of objects as upright or inverted with a left or right keypress, responses are faster if the response location (left/right) corresponds with the location of a handle (left/right) than if it does not. This result has typically been attributed to a grasping affordance (automatic activation of muscles associated with grasping the object with the ipsilateral hand), but several findings have indicated instead that the effect is a spatial correspondence effect, much like the Simon effect for object location. Pappas (2014) reported evidence he interpreted as showing that spatial coding predominates with silhouettes of objects, whereas photographs of objects yield affordance-based effects. We conducted two experiments similar to those of Pappas, using frying pans as stimuli, with our two experiments differing in whether the entire object was centered on the display screen or the base was centered. When the objects were centered, a positive correspondence effect relative to the handle was evident for the silhouettes but a negative correspondence effect for the photographs. When the base was centered, the handle was clearly located to the left or right side of the display, and both silhouettes and photographs produced correspondence effects of similar size relative to the handle location. Despite the main results being counter to the grasping affordance hypothesis, response-time distribution analyses suggest that, instead of activating automatically at fast responses, an effector-specific component of the hypothesized type may come into play for responses that are selected after the handle location has been identified.

Task demands determine hand posture bias on conflict processing in a Simon task

A huge body of research in humans and monkeys has provided evidence for altered processing of items that are presented close to the hands. At the same time, the underlying mechanisms that explain why objects close to the hands are processed differently from objects far from the hands are still debated. Empirical demonstrations have provided evidence for the involvement of bottom-up influences, but also for top-down influences of task relevance. Objects close to the hands change spatial attentional processing or are subject to increased cognitive control. The present study demonstrated that variations in the task-processing demands predicted the hand posture influence on conflict resolution in a Simon task. Participants responded with their hands either at the monitor (close to the stimuli) or on their knees (far from the stimuli). The Simon effect was significantly reduced for the hands-close as compared to the hands-far condition when participants performed a numerical size judgment (Exps. 1 and 2). In contrast, the Simon effect was significantly increased for the hands-close condition when the Simon task consisted of a low-level perceptual feature discrimination (i.e., color task, Exp. 2). The obtained task-processing specificity provides further evidence that a highly flexible system underlies hand posture effects on stimulus processing.

Action-effect congruence during observational learning leads to faster action sequence learning

Common coding theory suggests that any action (pressing a piano key) is intimately linked with its resultant sensory effect (an auditory musical tone). We conducted two experiments to explore the effect of varying auditory action-effect patterns during complex action learning. In Experiment 1, participants were assigned to 1 of 4 groups, watched a silent video of a hand playing a sequence on a piano keyboard with no auditory action effect (observation) and were asked to practise and perform the sequence on an identical keyboard with varying action effects (reproduction). During reproduction, Group 1 heard no auditory tones (identical to observed video), Group 2 heard typical scale-ascending piano tones with each key press, Group 3 heard fixed but out-of-sequence piano tones with each key press, and Group 4 heard random piano tones with each key press. In Experiment two, new participants were assigned to 1 of 2 groups and watched an identical video; however, the video in this experiment contained typical, scale-ascending piano sounds. During reproduction, Group 1 heard no auditory tones while Group 2 heard typical, scale-ascending piano tones with each key press (identical to observed video). Our results showed that participants whose action-effect patterns during reproduction matched those in the observed video learned the action sequence faster than participants whose action-effect patterns during reproduction differed from those in the observed video. Additionally, our results suggest that adding an effect during reproduction (when one is absent during observation) is somewhat more detrimental to action sequence learning than removing an effect during reproduction (when one is present during observation).

Reaction time measures in deception research: comparing the effects of irrelevant and relevant stimulus-response compatibility

Evidence regarding the validity of reaction time (RT) measures in deception research is mixed. One possible reason for this inconsistency is that structurally different RT paradigms have been used. The aim of this study was to experimentally investigate whether structural differences between RT tasks are related to how effective those tasks are for capturing deception. We achieved this aim by comparing the effectiveness of relevant and irrelevant stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) tasks. We also investigated whether an intended but not yet completed mock crime could be assessed with both tasks. Results showed (1) a larger compatibility effect in the relevant SRC task compared to the irrelevant SRC task, (2) for both the completed and the intended crime. These results were replicated in a second experiment in which a semantic feature (instead of color) was used as critical response feature in the irrelevant SRC task. The findings support the idea that a structural analysis of deception tasks helps to identify RT measures that produce robust group effects, and that strong compatibility effects for both enacted crimes as well as merely intended crimes can be found with RT measures that are based on the manipulation of relevant SRC.