» Articles » PMID: 30921368

Conflict Resolution in the Eriksen Flanker Task: Similarities and Differences to the Simon Task

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2019 Mar 29
PMID 30921368
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

In the Eriksen flanker task as well as in the Simon task irrelevant activation produces a response conflict that has to be resolved by mental control mechanisms. Despite these similarities, however, the tasks differ with respect to their delta functions, which express how the congruency effects develop with response time. The slope of the delta function is mostly positive for the flanker task, but negative for the Simon task. Much effort has been spent to explain this difference and to investigate whether it results from task-specific control. A prominent account is that the temporal overlap between irrelevant and relevant response activation is larger in the flanker task than in the Simon task. To test this hypothesis, we increased the temporal distance in a flanker task by presenting the flankers ahead of the target. This not only produced negatively sloped delta functions but also caused reversed congruency effects. We also conducted a Simon-task experiment in which we varied the proportion of congruent stimuli. As a result, the delta function was negatively sloped only if the proportion was low. These results demonstrate that a long temporal distance is necessary but not sufficient for observing negatively sloped delta functions. Finally, we modeled the data with drift-diffusion models. Together, our results show that differently sloped delta functions can be produced with both tasks. They further indicate that activation suppression is an important control mechanism that can be adapted rather flexibly to the control demands.

Citing Articles

Dynamic modulation of spatial selection: Online and anticipatory adjustments in the flanker task.

Villalonga M, Noyce A, Sekuler R Atten Percept Psychophys. 2025; .

PMID: 39979542 DOI: 10.3758/s13414-025-03026-5.


A comment on the Revised Diffusion Model for Conflict tasks (RDMC).

Janczyk M, Mackenzie I, Koob V Psychon Bull Rev. 2024; .

PMID: 39448516 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-024-02574-5.


Exploring the spatial interference effects elicited by social and non-social targets: A conditional accuracy function approach.

Ponce R, Lupianez J, Gonzalez-Garcia C, Casagrande M, Marotta A Br J Psychol. 2024; 116(1):69-88.

PMID: 39267579 PMC: 11724688. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12735.


Task-specific topology of brain networks supporting working memory and inhibition.

Adamovich T, Ismatullina V, Chipeeva N, Zakharov I, Feklicheva I, Malykh S Hum Brain Mapp. 2024; 45(13):e70024.

PMID: 39258339 PMC: 11387957. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.70024.


Inhibitory dynamics in dual-route evidence accumulation account for response time distributions from conflict tasks.

Lopez F, Pomi A Cogn Neurodyn. 2024; 18(4):1507-1524.

PMID: 39104700 PMC: 11297890. DOI: 10.1007/s11571-023-09990-8.


References
1.
Simon J . Reactions toward the source of stimulation. J Exp Psychol. 1969; 81(1):174-6. DOI: 10.1037/h0027448. View

2.
Proctor R . Playing the Simon game: use of the Simon task for investigating human information processing. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010; 136(2):182-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.06.010. View

3.
van den Wildenberg W, Wylie S, Forstmann B, Burle B, Hasbroucq T, Ridderinkhof K . To head or to heed? Beyond the surface of selective action inhibition: a review. Front Hum Neurosci. 2010; 4:222. PMC: 3004391. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2010.00222. View

4.
White C, Ratcliff R, Starns J . Diffusion models of the flanker task: discrete versus gradual attentional selection. Cogn Psychol. 2011; 63(4):210-38. PMC: 3195995. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.08.001. View

5.
de Jong R, Liang C, Lauber E . Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994; 20(4):731-50. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.20.4.731. View