↓ Skip to main content

The heterogeneous world of congruency sequence effects: an update

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
136 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
The heterogeneous world of congruency sequence effects: an update
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wout Duthoo, Elger L. Abrahamse, Senne Braem, Carsten N. Boehler, Wim Notebaert

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 119 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 20%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 14 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 69 57%
Neuroscience 12 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 25 20%
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 22 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,379,018
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,042
of 29,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,229
of 238,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#319
of 363 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 238,632 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 363 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.