Conflict Processing Is Unaffected by Stimulus Duration Across Multiple Visual Tasks: Evidence for Transient over Permanent Activation Models
-
Published:2024-07-24
Issue:3
Volume:7
Page:378-398
-
ISSN:2522-0861
-
Container-title:Computational Brain & Behavior
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Comput Brain Behav
Author:
Ellinghaus Ruben,Liepelt Roman,Mackenzie Ian G.,Mittelstädt Victor
Abstract
AbstractPermanent activation models of conflict tasks assume that the distractor constantly provides input into the response selection process as long as the stimulus is presented, whereas transient activation models assume that the influence of distractors is independent of stimulus duration. In the present study, we contrasted the prediction of these two architectures across different visual conflict tasks with manual responses. Specifically, we investigated the effects of short (150 ms) versus response-terminated stimulus duration on the delta plot (DP) slopes in a classic and accessory Simon task (Experiment 1), in a classic Simon and Eriksen flanker task (Experiment 2), and in a word-based (semantic) Simon and classic Stroop task (Experiment 3). Contrary to permanent activation models, all experiments revealed that the DP slopes were largely unaffected by stimulus duration. This result pattern is consistent with transient activation models such as the diffusion model for conflict tasks (DMC). Coherently, DMC was successfully fitted to the data. Importantly, the $$\tau $$
τ
parameter reflecting the time course of distractor activation, as well as other parameters, were largely unaffected by stimulus duration. In conclusion, our results suggest that distractor activation in visual conflict tasks with manual responses is transient rather than permanent, and stimulus duration generally has no meaningful influence on conflict processing.
Funder
FernUniversität in Hagen
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference79 articles.
1. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., & Watson, J. M. (2008). Beyond mean response latency: Response time distributional analyses of semantic priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 495–523. 2. Bridges, D., Pitiot, A., MacAskill, M. R., & Peirce, J. W. (2020). The timing mega-study: Comparing a range of experiment generators, both lab-based and online. PeerJ, 8, e9414. 3. Burle, B., Spieser, L., Servant, M., & Hasbroucq, T. (2014). Distributional reaction time properties in the Eriksen task: Marked differences or hidden similarities with the Simon task? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1003–1010. 4. Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332. 5. Coles, M. G., Gratton, G., Bashore, T. R., Eriksen, C. W., & Donchin, E. (1985). A psychophysiological investigation of the continuous flow model of human information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 529.
|
|