Advanced search
1 file | 1.21 MB Add to list

Instructed and acquired contingencies in response-inhibition tasks

Author
Organization
Abstract
Inhibitory control can be triggered directly via the retrieval of previously acquired stimulus-stop associations from memory. However, a recent study suggests that this item-specific stop learning may be mediated via expectancies of the contingencies in play (Best, Lawrence, Logan, McLaren, & Verbruggen, 2016). This could indicate that stimulus-stop learning also induces strategic proactive changes in performance. We further tested this hypothesis in the present study. In addition to measuring expectancies following task completion, we introduced a between-subjects expectancy manipulation in which one group of participants were informed about the stimulus-stop contingencies and another group did not receive any information about the stimulus-stop contingencies. Moreover, we combined this instruction manipulation with a distractor manipulation that was previously used to examine strategic proactive adjustments. We found that the stop-associated items slowed responding in both conditions. Furthermore, participants in both conditions generated expectancies following task completion that were consistent with the stimulus-stop contingencies. The distractor manipulation was ineffective. However, we found differences in the relationship between the expectancy ratings and task performance: in the instructed condition, the expectancies reliably correlated with the response slowing for the stop-associated items, whereas in the uninstructed condition we found no reliable correlation. These differences between the correlations were reliable, and our conclusions were further supported by Bayesian analyses. We conclude that stimulus-stop associations that are acquired either via task instructions or via task practice have similar effects on behaviour but could differ in how they elicit response slowing.
Keywords
Cognitive control, Executive functions, Learning

Downloads

  • 53-440-2-PB.pdf
    • full text (Published version)
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 1.21 MB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Best, Maisy, et al. “Instructed and Acquired Contingencies in Response-Inhibition Tasks.” JOURNAL OF COGNITION, vol. 2, no. 1, 2019, doi:10.5334/joc.53.
APA
Best, M., McLaren, I. P. L., & Verbruggen, F. (2019). Instructed and acquired contingencies in response-inhibition tasks. JOURNAL OF COGNITION, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.53
Chicago author-date
Best, Maisy, Ian P. L. McLaren, and Frederick Verbruggen. 2019. “Instructed and Acquired Contingencies in Response-Inhibition Tasks.” JOURNAL OF COGNITION 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.53.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Best, Maisy, Ian P. L. McLaren, and Frederick Verbruggen. 2019. “Instructed and Acquired Contingencies in Response-Inhibition Tasks.” JOURNAL OF COGNITION 2 (1). doi:10.5334/joc.53.
Vancouver
1.
Best M, McLaren IPL, Verbruggen F. Instructed and acquired contingencies in response-inhibition tasks. JOURNAL OF COGNITION. 2019;2(1).
IEEE
[1]
M. Best, I. P. L. McLaren, and F. Verbruggen, “Instructed and acquired contingencies in response-inhibition tasks,” JOURNAL OF COGNITION, vol. 2, no. 1, 2019.
@article{8604139,
  abstract     = {{Inhibitory control can be triggered directly via the retrieval of previously acquired stimulus-stop associations from memory. However, a recent study suggests that this item-specific stop learning may be mediated via expectancies of the contingencies in play (Best, Lawrence, Logan, McLaren, & Verbruggen, 2016). This could indicate that stimulus-stop learning also induces strategic proactive changes in performance. We further tested this hypothesis in the present study. In addition to measuring expectancies following task completion, we introduced a between-subjects expectancy manipulation in which one group of participants were informed about the stimulus-stop contingencies and another group did not receive any information about the stimulus-stop contingencies. Moreover, we combined this instruction manipulation with a distractor manipulation that was previously used to examine strategic proactive adjustments. We found that the stop-associated items slowed responding in both conditions. Furthermore, participants in both conditions generated expectancies following task completion that were consistent with the stimulus-stop contingencies. The distractor manipulation was ineffective. However, we found differences in the relationship between the expectancy ratings and task performance: in the instructed condition, the expectancies reliably correlated with the response slowing for the stop-associated items, whereas in the uninstructed condition we found no reliable correlation. These differences between the correlations were reliable, and our conclusions were further supported by Bayesian analyses. We conclude that stimulus-stop associations that are acquired either via task instructions or via task practice have similar effects on behaviour but could differ in how they elicit response slowing.}},
  articleno    = {{4}},
  author       = {{Best, Maisy and McLaren, Ian P. L. and Verbruggen, Frederick}},
  issn         = {{2514-4820}},
  journal      = {{JOURNAL OF COGNITION}},
  keywords     = {{Cognitive control,Executive functions,Learning}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{1}},
  pages        = {{23}},
  title        = {{Instructed and acquired contingencies in response-inhibition tasks}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/joc.53}},
  volume       = {{2}},
  year         = {{2019}},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric