↓ Skip to main content

Effects of arousal on cognitive control: empirical tests of the conflict-modulated Hebbian-learning hypothesis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of arousal on cognitive control: empirical tests of the conflict-modulated Hebbian-learning hypothesis
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00023
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen B. R. E. Brown, Henk van Steenbergen, Tomer Kedar, Sander Nieuwenhuis

Abstract

An increasing number of empirical phenomena that were previously interpreted as a result of cognitive control, turn out to reflect (in part) simple associative-learning effects. A prime example is the proportion congruency effect, the finding that interference effects (such as the Stroop effect) decrease as the proportion of incongruent stimuli increases. While this was previously regarded as strong evidence for a global conflict monitoring-cognitive control loop, recent evidence has shown that the proportion congruency effect is largely item-specific and hence must be due to associative learning. The goal of our research was to test a recent hypothesis about the mechanism underlying such associative-learning effects, the conflict-modulated Hebbian-learning hypothesis, which proposes that the effect of conflict on associative learning is mediated by phasic arousal responses. In Experiment 1, we examined in detail the relationship between the item-specific proportion congruency effect and an autonomic measure of phasic arousal: task-evoked pupillary responses. In Experiment 2, we used a task-irrelevant phasic arousal manipulation and examined the effect on item-specific learning of incongruent stimulus-response associations. The results provide little evidence for the conflict-modulated Hebbian-learning hypothesis, which requires additional empirical support to remain tenable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 3%
United States 1 1%
Turkey 1 1%
Unknown 69 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Researcher 13 18%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 41 56%
Neuroscience 9 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Mathematics 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 9 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 March 2014.
All research outputs
#17,710,421
of 22,741,406 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,701
of 7,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,771
of 305,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#100
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,741,406 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 305,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.