| Title |
Accounting for sequential trial effects in the flanker task: Conflict adaptation or associative priming?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Memory & Cognition, September 2006
|
| DOI | 10.3758/bf03193270 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sander Nieuwenhuis, John F. Stins, Danielle Posthuma, Tinca J. C. Polderman, Dorret I. Boomsma, Eco J. de Geus |
| Abstract |
The conflict-control loop theory proposes that the detection of conflict in information processing triggers an increase in cognitive control, resulting in improved performance on the subsequent trial. This theory seems consistent with the robust finding that conflict susceptibility is reduced following correct trials associated with high conflict: the conflict adaptation effect. However, despite providing favorable conditions for eliciting and detecting conflict-triggered performance adjustments, none of the five experiments reported here provide unequivocal evidence of such adjustments. Instead, the results corroborate and extend earlier findings by demonstrating that the conflict adaptation effect, at least in the flanker task, is only present for a specific subset of trial sequences that is characterized by a response repetition. This pattern of results provides strong evidence that the conflict adaptation effect reflects associative stimulus-response priming instead of conflict-driven adaptations in cognitive control. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 4 | 2% |
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 251 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 69 | 26% |
| Researcher | 44 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 37 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 10% |
| Professor | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 44 | 17% |
| Unknown | 28 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 162 | 61% |
| Neuroscience | 24 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Linguistics | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 6% |
| Unknown | 40 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2013.
All research outputs
#8,515,019
of 25,391,066 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#537
of 1,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,867
of 86,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,391,066 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 86,825 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.