The Bivalency Effect: Adjustment of Cognitive Control Without Response Set Priming

Overview

Journal Psychol Res

Specialty Psychology

Date 2011 Feb 25

PMID 21347864

Citations 7

Authors

Alodie Rey-Mermet

Beat Meier

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The occasional occurrence of bivalent stimuli, that is, stimuli with features relevant to two tasks, slows performance on subsequent tasks with univalent stimuli, including those which have no common features with bivalent stimuli (i.e., the "bivalency effect"). We have suggested that the bivalency effect might stem from an episodic context binding arising from the occasional occurrence of bivalent stimuli. However, as the same response set is used usually for univalent and bivalent stimuli, bivalent stimulus features may be negatively primed via response features. We investigated this possibility in two experiments, in which one group of participants used the same response keys for all tasks and another group used separate response keys. The results showed a comparable bivalency effect in both groups. Thus, it rather results from episodic context binding than from response set priming.

Citing Articles

Post-conflict slowing effects in monolingual and bilingual children.

Grundy J, Keyvani Chahi A Dev Sci. 2016; 20(1).

PMID: 27748005 PMC: 5199612. DOI: 10.1111/desc.12488.

Post-conflict slowing after incongruent stimuli: from general to conflict-specific.

Rey-Mermet A, Meier B Psychol Res. 2016; 81(3):611-628.

PMID: 27020771 DOI: 10.1007/s00426-016-0767-0.

An orienting response is not enough: Bivalency not infrequency causes the bivalency effect.

Rey-Mermet A, Meier B Adv Cogn Psychol. 2013; 9(3):146-55.

PMID: 24155863 PMC: 3783937. DOI: 10.2478/v10053-008-0142-9.

A role for recency of response conflict in producing the bivalency effect.

Grundy J, Shedden J Psychol Res. 2013; 78(5):679-91.

PMID: 24146081 DOI: 10.1007/s00426-013-0520-x.

The bivalency effect represents an interference-triggered adjustment of cognitive control: an ERP study.

Rey-Mermet A, Koenig T, Meier B Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2013; 13(3):575-83.

PMID: 23584989 DOI: 10.3758/s13415-013-0160-z.

References

Monsell S, Yeung N, Azuma R . Reconfiguration of task-set: is it easier to switch to the weaker task?. Psychol Res. 2000; 63(3-4):250-64. DOI: 10.1007/s004269900005. View

Meiran N . The dual implication of dual affordance: stimulus-task binding and attentional focus changing during task preparation. Exp Psychol. 2008; 55(4):251-9. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169.55.4.251. View

Rubinstein J, Meyer D, Evans J . Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001; 27(4):763-97. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.27.4.763. View

Meier B, Woodward T, Rey-Mermet A, Graf P . The bivalency effect in task switching: general and enduring. Can J Exp Psychol. 2009; 63(3):201-10. DOI: 10.1037/a0014311. View

Druey M, Hubner R . Effects of stimulus features and instruction on response coding, selection, and inhibition: evidence from repetition effects under task switching. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008; 61(10):1573-600. DOI: 10.1080/17470210701643397. View

Woodward T, Metzak P, Meier B, Holroyd C . Anterior cingulate cortex signals the requirement to break inertia when switching tasks: a study of the bivalency effect. Neuroimage. 2008; 40(3):1311-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.12.049. View

Kunde W, Kiesel A . See what you've done! Active touch affects the number of perceived visual objects. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006; 13(2):304-9. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193848. View

Steinhauser M, Hubner R . Distinguishing response conflict and task conflict in the Stroop task: evidence from ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009; 35(5):1398-412. DOI: 10.1037/a0016467. View

Fagioli S, Hommel B, Schubotz R . Intentional control of attention: action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Psychol Res. 2005; 71(1):22-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-005-0033-3. View

10.

Meiran N, Kessler Y, Adi-Japha E . Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): a theoretical framework for task switching. Psychol Res. 2008; 72(5):473-500. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-008-0136-8. View

11.

Waszak F, Pholulamdeth V . Episodic S-R bindings and emotion: about the influence of positive and negative action effects on stimulus-response associations. Exp Brain Res. 2009; 194(3):489-94. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-009-1745-1. View

12.

Waszak F, Hommel B, Allport A . Task-switching and long-term priming: role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cogn Psychol. 2003; 46(4):361-413. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0285(02)00520-0. View

13.

Metzker M, Dreisbach G . Bidirectional priming processes in the Simon task. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2009; 35(6):1770-83. DOI: 10.1037/a0015787. View

14.

Deubel H, Schneider W . Saccade target selection and object recognition: evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Res. 1996; 36(12):1827-37. DOI: 10.1016/0042-6989(95)00294-4. View

15.

Woodward T, Meier B, Tipper C, Graf P . Bivalency is costly: bivalent stimuli elicit cautious responding. Exp Psychol. 2003; 50(4):233-8. DOI: 10.1026//1618-3169.50.4.233. View

16.

Braverman A, Meiran N . Task conflict effect in task switching. Psychol Res. 2010; 74(6):568-78. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-010-0279-2. View

17.

Wylie G, Allport A . Task switching and the measurement of "switch costs". Psychol Res. 2000; 63(3-4):212-33. DOI: 10.1007/s004269900003. View

18.

Egner T . Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2008; 7(4):380-90. DOI: 10.3758/cabn.7.4.380. View

19.

Hommel B, Musseler J, Aschersleben G, Prinz W . The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behav Brain Sci. 2002; 24(5):849-78; discussion 878-937. DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x01000103. View

20.

Hommel B . Event files: feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004; 8(11):494-500. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007. View