A Comment on the Revised Diffusion Model for Conflict Tasks (RDMC)

Overview

Journal Psychon Bull Rev

Specialty Psychology

Date 2024 Oct 24

PMID 39448516

Authors

Markus Janczyk

Ian Grant Mackenzie

Valentin Koob

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In conflict tasks, such as the Simon, Eriksen flanker, or Stroop task, a relevant and an irrelevant feature indicate the same or different responses in congruent and incongruent trials, respectively. The congruency effect refers to faster and less error-prone responses in congruent relative to incongruent trials. Distributional analyses reveal that the congruency effect in the Simon task becomes smaller with increasing RTs, reflected by a negative-going delta function. In contrast, for other tasks, the delta function is typically positive-going, meaning that congruency effects become larger with increasing RTs. The Diffusion Model for Conflict tasks (DMC; Ulrich et al., Cognitive Psychology, 78, 148-174, 2015) accounts for this by explicitly modeling the information accumulated from the relevant and the irrelevant features and attributes negatively- versus positively-sloped delta functions to different peak times of a pulse-like activation resulting from the task-irrelevant feature. Because the underlying function implies negative drift rates, Lee and Sewell (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 31(5), 1-31, 2024) recently questioned this assumption and suggested their Revised Diffusion Model for Conflict tasks (RDMC). We address three issues regarding RDMC compared to DMC: (1) The pulse-like function is not as implausible as Lee and Sewell suggest. (2) RDMC itself comes with a questionable assumption that different parameters are required for congruent and incongruent trials. (3) Moreover, we present data from a new parameter recovery study, suggesting that RDMC lacks acceptable recovery of several parameters (in particular compared to DMC). In this light, we discuss RDMC as not (yet) a revised version of DMC.

References

Anderson M, Bjork R, Bjork E . Remembering can cause forgetting: retrieval dynamics in long-term memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1994; 20(5):1063-87. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.20.5.1063. View

Bauml K, Pastotter B, Hanslmayr S . Binding and inhibition in episodic memory-cognitive, emotional, and neural processes. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009; 34(7):1047-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.04.005. View

Botvinick M, Braver T, Barch D, Carter C, Cohen J . Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychol Rev. 2001; 108(3):624-52. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.624. View

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

Evans N, Servant M . A model-based approach to disentangling facilitation and interference effects in conflict tasks. Psychol Rev. 2022; 129(5):1183-1209. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000357. View

Folk C, Remington R, Johnston J . Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1992; 18(4):1030-44. View

Gaspelin N, Lamy D, Egeth H, Liesefeld H, Kerzel D, Mandal A . The Distractor Positivity Component and the Inhibition of Distracting Stimuli. J Cogn Neurosci. 2023; 35(11):1693-1715. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_02051. View

Gaspelin N, Luck S . The Role of Inhibition in Avoiding Distraction by Salient Stimuli. Trends Cogn Sci. 2017; 22(1):79-92. PMC: 5742040. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.001. View

Heuer H, Seegelke C, Wuhr P . Staggered Onsets of Processing Relevant and Irrelevant Stimulus Features Produce Different Dynamics of Congruency Effects. J Cogn. 2023; 6(1):8. PMC: 9838228. DOI: 10.5334/joc.252. View

10.

Hilchey M, Ivanoff J, Taylor T, Klein R . Visualizing the temporal dynamics of spatial information processing responsible for the Simon effect and its amplification by inhibition of return. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010; 136(2):235-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.09.003. View

11.

Hommel B . Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychol Res. 1994; 56(4):261-8. DOI: 10.1007/BF00419656. View

12.

Hubner R, Steinhauser M, Lehle C . A dual-stage two-phase model of selective attention. Psychol Rev. 2010; 117(3):759-84. DOI: 10.1037/a0019471. View

13.

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

14.

Jonker T, Seli P, MacLeod C . Putting retrieval-induced forgetting in context: an inhibition-free, context-based account. Psychol Rev. 2013; 120(4):852-72. DOI: 10.1037/a0034246. View

15.

Kiesel A, Steinhauser M, Wendt M, Falkenstein M, Jost K, Philipp A . Control and interference in task switching--a review. Psychol Bull. 2010; 136(5):849-74. DOI: 10.1037/a0019842. View

16.

Koob V, MacKenzie I, Ulrich R, Leuthold H, Janczyk M . The role of task-relevant and task-irrelevant information in congruency sequence effects: Applying the diffusion model for conflict tasks. Cogn Psychol. 2022; 140:101528. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2022.101528. View

17.

Koob V, Ulrich R, Janczyk M . Response activation and activation-transmission in response-based backward crosstalk: Analyses and simulations with an extended diffusion model. Psychol Rev. 2021; 130(1):102-136. DOI: 10.1037/rev0000326. View

18.

Kornblum S, Hasbroucq T, Osman A . Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility--a model and taxonomy. Psychol Rev. 1990; 97(2):253-70. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.97.2.253. View

19.

Liesefeld H, Muller H . Modulations of saliency signals at two hierarchical levels of priority computation revealed by spatial statistical distractor learning. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2020; 150(4):710-728. DOI: 10.1037/xge0000970. View

20.

Logan G . Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: theory and data. Cogn Psychol. 1980; 12(4):523-53. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0285(80)90019-5. View