» Articles » PMID: 34591554

Strategy and Processing Speed Eclipse Individual Differences in Control Ability in Conflict Tasks

Overview
Specialty Psychology
Date 2021 Sep 30
PMID 34591554
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Response control or inhibition is one of the cornerstones of modern cognitive psychology, featuring prominently in theories of executive functioning and impulsive behavior. However, repeated failures to observe correlations between commonly applied tasks have led some theorists to question whether common response conflict processes even exist. A challenge to answering this question is that behavior is multifaceted, with both conflict and nonconflict processes (e.g., strategy, processing speed) contributing to individual differences. Here, we use a cognitive model to dissociate these processes; the diffusion model for conflict tasks (Ulrich et al., 2015). In a meta-analysis of fits to seven empirical datasets containing combinations of the flanker, Simon, color-word Stroop, and spatial Stroop tasks, we observed weak ( < .05) zero-order correlations between tasks in parameters reflecting conflict processing, seemingly challenging a general control construct. However, our meta-analysis showed consistent positive correlations in parameters representing processing speed and strategy. We then use model simulations to evaluate whether correlations in behavioral costs are diagnostic of the presence or absence of common mechanisms of conflict processing. We use the model to impose known correlations for conflict mechanisms across tasks, and we compare the simulated behavior to simulations when there is no conflict correlation across tasks. We find that correlations in strategy and processing speed can produce behavioral correlations equal to, or larger than, those produced by correlated conflict mechanisms. We conclude that correlations between conflict tasks are only weakly informative about common conflict mechanisms if researchers do not control for strategy and processing speed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Citing Articles

Age-related change in inhibitory processes when controlling working memory capacity and processing speed: A confirmatory factor analysis.

Carriedo N, Rodriguez-Villagra O, Moriano J, Montoro P, Iglesias-Sarmiento V PLoS One. 2025; 20(1):e0316347.

PMID: 39869624 PMC: 11771910. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0316347.


Neural Variability and Cognitive Control in Individuals With Opioid Use Disorder.

Ye J, Mehta S, Peterson H, Ibrahim A, Saeed G, Linsky S JAMA Netw Open. 2025; 8(1):e2455165.

PMID: 39821393 PMC: 11742521. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.55165.


Personalized Cognitive Health in Psychiatry: Current State and the Promise of Computational Methods.

Chen C, Vinogradov S Schizophr Bull. 2024; 50(5):1028-1038.

PMID: 38934792 PMC: 11349010. DOI: 10.1093/schbul/sbae108.


Further unpacking individual differences in mind wandering: The role of emotional valence and awareness.

Welhaf M, Astacio M, Banks J Conscious Cogn. 2024; 122:103697.

PMID: 38823316 PMC: 11256071. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2024.103697.


The common factor of executive functions measures nothing but speed of information uptake.

Loffler C, Frischkorn G, Hagemann D, Sadus K, Schubert A Psychol Res. 2024; 88(4):1092-1114.

PMID: 38372769 PMC: 11143038. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-023-01924-7.


References
1.
Hedden T, Yoon C . Individual differences in executive processing predict susceptibility to interference in verbal working memory. Neuropsychology. 2006; 20(5):511-28. DOI: 10.1037/0894-4105.20.5.511. View

2.
Lansbergen M, Kenemans J, van Engeland H . Stroop interference and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a review and meta-analysis. Neuropsychology. 2007; 21(2):251-62. DOI: 10.1037/0894-4105.21.2.251. View

3.
Kane M, Engle R . Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2003; 132(1):47-70. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47. View

4.
Gehring W, Gratton G, Coles M, Donchin E . Probability effects on stimulus evaluation and response processes. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992; 18(1):198-216. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.18.1.198. View

5.
Hubner R, Tobel L . Conflict resolution in the Eriksen flanker task: Similarities and differences to the Simon task. PLoS One. 2019; 14(3):e0214203. PMC: 6438467. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214203. View