Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University Ghent, Belgium.
Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University Ghent, Belgium ; Department of Experimental Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent University Ghent, Belgium.
Front Psychol. 2014 Sep 9;5:1001. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01001. eCollection 2014.
Congruency sequence effects (CSEs) refer to the observation that congruency effects in conflict tasks are typically smaller following incongruent compared to following congruent trials. This measure has long been thought to provide a unique window into top-down attentional adjustments and their underlying brain mechanisms. According to the renowned conflict monitoring theory, CSEs reflect enhanced selective attention following conflict detection. Still, alternative accounts suggested that bottom-up associative learning suffices to explain the pattern of reaction times and error rates. A couple of years ago, a review by Egner (2007) pitted these two rivalry accounts against each other, concluding that both conflict adaptation and feature integration contribute to the CSE. Since then, a wealth of studies has further debated this issue, and two additional accounts have been proposed, offering intriguing alternative explanations. Contingency learning accounts put forward that predictive relationships between stimuli and responses drive the CSE, whereas the repetition expectancy hypothesis suggests that top-down, expectancy-driven control adjustments affect the CSE. In the present paper, we build further on the previous review (Egner, 2007) by summarizing and integrating recent behavioral and neurophysiological studies on the CSE. In doing so, we evaluate the relative contribution and theoretical value of the different attentional and memory-based accounts. Moreover, we review how all of these influences can be experimentally isolated, and discuss designs and procedures that can critically judge between them.
一致序列效应(CSEs)是指在冲突任务中,与一致试验相比,不一致试验后的一致性效应通常较小。长期以来,这种测量方法一直被认为是深入了解自上而下的注意力调节及其潜在的大脑机制的独特窗口。根据著名的冲突监测理论,CSE 反映了冲突检测后选择性注意力的增强。然而,替代理论认为,自下而上的联想学习足以解释反应时间和错误率的模式。几年前,Egner(2007)的一篇综述将这两种对立的解释进行了对比,得出的结论是,冲突适应和特征整合都有助于 CSE。从那时起,大量的研究进一步讨论了这个问题,提出了另外两种解释,提供了有趣的替代解释。偶然性学习理论提出,刺激和反应之间的预测关系驱动 CSE,而重复期望假说则表明,自上而下的、期望驱动的控制调整会影响 CSE。在本文中,我们在前一篇综述(Egner,2007)的基础上进一步总结和整合了最近关于 CSE 的行为和神经生理学研究。通过这样做,我们评估了不同基于注意力和记忆的解释的相对贡献和理论价值。此外,我们还回顾了如何将所有这些影响进行实验分离,并讨论了可以对其进行批判性判断的设计和程序。