title: Congruency sequence effects are driven by previous-trial congruency, not previous-trial response conflict.
abstract: Congruency effects in distracter interference tasks are often smaller after incongruent trials than after congruent trials. However, the sources of such congruency sequence effects (CSEs) are controversial. The conflict monitoring model of cognitive control links CSEs to the detection and resolution of response conflict. In contrast, competing theories attribute CSEs to attentional or affective processes that vary with previous-trial congruency (incongruent vs. congruent). The present study sought to distinguish between conflict monitoring and congruency-based accounts of CSEs. To this end, we determined whether CSEs are driven by previous-trial reaction time (RT)-a putative measure of response conflict-or by previous-trial congruency. In two experiments using a face-word Stroop task (n = 49), we found that current-trial congruency effects did not vary with previous-trial RT independent of previous-trial congruency. In contrast, current-trial congruency effects were influenced by previous-trial congruency independent of previous-trial RT. These findings appear more consistent with theories that attribute CSEs to non-conflict processes whose recruitment varies with previous-trial congruency than with theories that link CSEs to previous-trial response conflict.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
authors.forename: Daniel H
authors.initials: DH
authors.lastname: Weissman
authors.forename: Joshua
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Carp
keywords: conflict monitoring; congruency sequence effects; face-word Stroop; reaction time; sequential modulations
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2013 Feb;39(1):271-84
references.pmid: 22428671
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2011 Jul 15;57(2):316-9
references.pmid: 21530662
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Apr;13(2):328-33
references.pmid: 16893003
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Jun;18(3):505-11
references.pmid: 21404129
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Aug;20(4):798-805
references.pmid: 23371807
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2008 Oct;12(10):374-80
references.pmid: 18760657
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2011 Jul 15;57(2):303-11
references.pmid: 21168515
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011 Dec;37(6):1898-914
references.pmid: 21767054
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2008 Jun;18(6):1475-84
references.pmid: 17940084
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2011 Sep;138(1):176-86
references.pmid: 21745649
references.citation: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2007 Dec;7(4):380-90
references.pmid: 18189011
references.citation: Biol Psychol. 2012 Jul;90(3):234-41
references.pmid: 22504294
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2009 Nov;73(6):803-16
references.pmid: 19034499
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Apr;12(2):282-8
references.pmid: 16082807
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Jun;64(6):1056-81
references.pmid: 21113864
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2006 Sep;34(6):1260-72
references.pmid: 17225507
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2007 Oct;33(5):1256-60
references.pmid: 17924821
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2004 Feb;68(1):1-17
references.pmid: 14752663
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2004 Oct;111(4):931-959
references.pmid: 15482068
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2011 Sep;75(5):376-83
references.pmid: 21210144
references.citation: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2005 Dec;5(4):467-72
references.pmid: 16541815
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1992 Dec;121(4):480-506
references.pmid: 1431740
references.citation: Front Hum Neurosci. 2010 Dec 24;4:231
references.pmid: 21212836
references.citation: Brain Cogn. 2012 Mar;78(2):94-8
references.pmid: 22218295
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012 Oct;141(2):133-9
references.pmid: 22964053
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2010 Sep 16;1:154
references.pmid: 21833220
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2012 May;49(5):583-9
references.pmid: 22332754
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2001 Jul;108(3):624-52
references.pmid: 11488380
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2003 May;6(5):450-2
references.pmid: 12704394
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2002 Nov;66(4):324-36
references.pmid: 12466929
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2010 Nov;21(11):1629-34
references.pmid: 20943936
references.citation: Science. 2004 Feb 13;303(5660):1023-6
references.pmid: 14963333