Local and global control adjustments to stimulus-based task conflict in task switching

Abstract

A prominent feature of cognitive control is that its deployment is regulated depending on the environmental circumstances. Control upregulation has been widely documented in response-conflict paradigms where congruency effects are reduced both following incongruent trials, and in blocks where incongruent trials are the majority. In two pre-registered task-switching experiments, we investigated whether similar flexible mechanisms are also available when dealing with stimulus-based task conflict. Building up on previous Stroop studies, task conflict was measured as the difference in performance between bivalent congruent and univalent trials, which we name the “valency effect.” If cognitive control is upregulated analogously to what observed with response conflict, valency effects should be reduced following bivalent trials and in majority-bivalent blocks. Furthermore, as cognitive control upregulation has been proposed to be task specific, we assessed whether switching to a new task eliminates the expected modulations of task. The results broadly matched our predictions. First, we observed a reduction of the valency effect following bivalent trials similar to the well-known congruency sequence effect, demonstrating similar patterns of flexible control adjustment to task and response conflict. This valency sequence effect was limited to task repetitions, indicating that local control adjustments are task specific. Furthermore, task conflict was reduced in majority-bivalent blocks, similar to the proportion-congruency effect. This finding extends previous Stroop studies suggesting that control is recruited proactively when dealing with stimulus-based task. The proportion valency effect was limited to task-switch trials, leaving open the question on the precise mechanisms behind sustained control adjustments.