Short CommunicationIndividual but not fragile: Individual differences in task control predict Stroop facilitation
Highlights
► The Stroop facilitation effect is sometimes referred to as a “fragile effect”. ► One hundred and thirty-six participants carried out Stroop and stop-signal tasks. ► A correlation was found between stop-signal reaction time and Stroop facilitation. ► The Stroop facilitation effect is contingent upon inhibitory and task control.
Introduction
Executive control is a key human function that mediates the ability to maintain goal-directed behavior (Banich, 2009, Miller and Cohen, 2001, Miyake et al., 2000, Shallice and Norman, 1986). A popular task to investigate this process in the lab is the Stroop task (Stroop, 1935). In the common task, individuals are asked to identify the ink color in which a word is printed (i.e., word color) while ignoring the word meaning. The word color and word meaning can be either congruent (e.g., RED written in red), incongruent (e.g., GREEN written in red) or neutral (e.g., XXXX written in red). It is commonly assumed that incongruent trials create a conflict, and a control mechanism is recruited to settle this conflict. Hence, the reaction time (RT) for incongruent trials is commonly longer than RT for neutral trials. This is known as the interference effect, which is a very strong and stable effect (MacLeod, 1991). In congruent trials, both word color and word meaning activate the same response; hence, RT is usually faster than in neutral trials. This is known as the facilitation effect, which is a much smaller and less stable effect than the interference effect (e.g., Dalrymple-Alford & Budayr, 1966). The facilitation effect is sometimes absent (Kalanthroff, Goldfarb, and Henik, 2012, Mathis et al., 2009), and in many studies referred to as a “fragile effect” (e.g., Fuentes and Ortells, 1993, Goldfarb and Henik, 2007, Logan and Zbrodoff, 1998, MacLeod and MacDonald, 2000). The current study aims to address the fragility of the facilitation effect and examines whether individual differences in the ability to execute control produce differences in the size of the facilitation effect.
Several neuroimaging studies demonstrated that the anterior cingulated cortex (ACC)—a brain area thought to monitor conflict (Botvinick, Braver, Barch, Carter, & Cohen, 2001; Botvinick et al., 1999, Carter et al., 1999, Carter et al., 1998)—is more activated in the incongruent condition than in the neutral condition (e.g., Bench et al., 1993; Carter, Mintun, & Cohen, 1995; Milham et al., 2002, for older participants). Interestingly, however, these studies also showed that not only the incongruent Stroop stimuli triggered higher ACC activations than the neutrals did, but the congruent Stroop trials did so too. Hence, the findings of ACC activation mentioned above imply that conflict occurs not only in the incongruent condition but also in the congruent condition.
The contradiction between the behavioral (RT to congruent trials faster than to neutral trials) and neurological (higher ACC activation to congruent than neutral trials) findings has been subject to a number of recent investigations. Goldfarb and Henik (2007) suggested that the contradiction can be settled by distinguishing between two conflicts reflected in the Stroop task—informational (between the incongruent word and ink color) and task (between relevant color naming and irrelevant word reading). While the information conflict involves the content of the stimulus and the response needed, differing between congruent and incongruent Stroop stimuli, task conflict involves the task associated with the stimulus, and differs between congruent and non-word neutral Stroop stimuli (Kalanthroff, Goldfarb, & Henik, 2012). This is consistent with the suggestion that a stimulus has the ability to evoke performance of a task that has a strong association with it (Allport and Wylie, 2000, Rogers and Monsell, 1995, Waszak et al., 2003) and specifically, that words trigger an automatic tendency to read written words (MacLeod & MacDonald, 2000). Monsell (2003) proposed that a cognitive task, and the efficiency with which we perform it, results from an interplay between 2 mechanisms: (1) endogenous control, which emphasizes the role of deliberate intentions governed by goals, and (2) exogenous influences, which are caused by alternative possible tasks available by the stimulus. In the Stroop task, endogenous control will lead to focusing attention on the color naming task, whereas word reading will be the strongest exogenous influence. Monsell’s proposal seems to fit with the task conflict reasoning. Recently, David et al. (2011) found evidence, in an event-related potential (ERP) study, for the existence of task conflict in the Stroop matching task; Steinhauser and Hubner (2009) found evidence for the dissociation of task conflict from the response conflict in the ex-Gaussian distribution analysis.
Wilkinson and Halligan (2004) suggested that one of the cases in which behavior expected from brain activation will not appear is when another brain structure contributes to the reduction of this behavior. Accordingly, the contradiction between behavior and brain activation in the Stroop task indicates the existence of an active control mechanism aimed at eliminating the task conflict. In line with this, Goldfarb and Henik (2007) claimed that the task conflict is usually not seen due to a very efficient task control mechanism. Thus, task conflict does delay responding to the congruent condition but (due to the efficient control mechanism) not enough to make it slower than responding to the neutral condition. Task control is a cognitive mechanism that is responsible for solving the task conflict or the ‘task set competition’; namely, the need to perform a target task and play down an irrelevant task (Banich, 2009, Goldfarb and Henik, 2007, Monsell, 2003, Monsell et al., 2001). Recently, Braver and colleagues (Braver, 2012, De Pisapia and Braver, 2006) suggested the dual mechanism theory of pro-active (reflecting the strategic block-wise control) and reactive (reflecting the stimulus driven trial-by-trial control) mechanisms. Though this framework does not account for task conflict, it seems reasonable to assume that task conflict will usually become visible when pro-active control (or the ‘task demand’ component introduced in earlier models, e.g., Botvinick et al., 2001) is low. Goldfarb and Henik (2007) tried to ‘put the task conflict (pro-active) guard to sleep’ by increasing the proportion of nonword neutral trials and by providing cues for whether the upcoming trial was going to be a neutral or a conflict one (i.e., congruent or incongruent). This reduced the task conflict control and resulted in a reversed facilitation effect in which the congruent RT was longer than the neutral RT—a behavioral evidence for the task conflict. In a more recent study (Kalanthroff, Goldfarb, Usher, & Henik, 2012), we found that the reverse facilitation effect appears in a similar procedure even if no incongruent trials exist. This suggests that task conflict appears whenever there is an alternative possible task regardless of the response it initiates. Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that RTs to Stroop congruent trials are contingent upon the efficiency of the task control mechanism.
Task conflict and the idea that the direction of the facilitation effect depends on the activation of an irrelevant task has been discussed in the task-switching literature (e.g., Aarts et al., 2009, Braverman and Meiran, 2010, Rogers and Monsell, 1995). Considering that task switching reduces pro-active control, it is not surprising that a reverse facilitation is often seen in task-switching studies (see also Aron, Monsell, Sahakian, & Robbins, 2004).
The current study aims to investigate whether individual differences in task control can explain the variance in the Stroop facilitation effect. As mentioned earlier, the Stroop facilitation effect is small, unstable and often referred to as “fragile”—some individuals and some subject group samples do not show the effect (e.g., Fuentes and Ortells, 1993, Kalanthroff, Goldfarb, and Henik, 2012, Logan and Zbrodoff, 1998, MacLeod and MacDonald, 2000). We predict that individual differences in the efficiency of the task control mechanism can explain why some individuals have a facilitation effect and some do not.
In the Stroop task subjects have to inhibit their irrelevant but automatic, prepotent reading responses (Miyake et al., 2000). Such inhibition is needed to improve performance in both incongruent and congruent trials. La Heij and Boelens (2011) recently suggested that children’s low ability to manage task conflict can result from their immature inhibition of a prepotent response mechanism. Accordingly, we believe that the ability to inhibit a prepotent response can predict the magnitude of both the Stroop interference and facilitation effects.
A task that is commonly used to measure inhibition of a prepotent response is the stop-signal task (Logan, 1994, Logan and Cowan, 1984), which examines the ability to suppress an already initiated action that is no longer appropriate. A great deal of research has been carried out in the past few decades with the stop-signal task (for review see Verbruggen & Logan, 2008). In the classic task, participants are asked to address a visual stimulus (go signal) with a motor response as fast as possible. In about 25% of the trials, an auditory stimulus (stop signal) comes right after the visual go signal. Participants are instructed to inhibit their motor response when they hear the stop signal. The duration between the go signal and the stop signal (SSD; stop-signal delay) is subjected to a tracking procedure—in the subsequent stopping trial, the SSD will become a bit longer (more difficult) following successful inhibition, or a bit shorter (easier) following erroneous response to the stop signal. Eventually, it becomes possible to estimate the stop-signal reaction time (SSRT), which is the time needed for successful inhibition. Logan and Cowan, 1984, Logan et al., 1984 compared the performance in the stop-signal task to a ‘horse race’ between the go process (triggered by the go signal) and the stop process (triggered by the stop signal). While RT is the time needed for the go process to finish, SSRT is time needed for the stop process to finish. Logan et al. (1984) argued that “response inhibition phenomena are consistent with a hierarchical theory of attention in which a high level process determines the significance of incoming stimuli and decides whether to abort the current stream of thought and action…” (p. 290). Indeed, the stop process represents high-level control and SSRT has proven to be an important measure of cognitive control (Verbruggen & Logan, 2008), and has proven useful in developmental and pathology studies (for reviews see Boucher et al., 2007, Logan, 1994).
In a previous study (Kalanthroff, Goldfarb, & Henik, 2012), we analyzed stop-signal control failure trials (i.e., erroneous response to stop-signal trials). In that study, we found longer RTs in the Stroop congruent condition compared with the Stroop neutral condition. Thus, a momentary failure in stopping results in both an erroneous response to a stop signal and in slow management of the task conflict. These results strengthened the notion that there could be some overlap between the inhibition of a prepotent response and task control or the control needed to manage the task conflict in the Stroop congruent condition. This fits in with Friedman and Miyake’s (2004) suggestion that stopping and Stroop belong to the same latent variable.1
Here we suggest that variance in the Stroop facilitation effect is not random and that it can be explained in terms of individual differences in task control. The current study aims to disclose a factor that contributes to the variance in the Stroop facilitation effect—the task conflict that relies on inhibitory control. According to the notion that task control relies on inhibition of a pre-potent response, we predicted that individual differences in SSRT would correlate with individual differences in Stroop facilitation. More specifically, we expected that a long SSRT (which indicates low inhibitory control) would predict no (or even reversed) Stroop facilitation, and that a short SSRT (high inhibitory control) would predict large facilitation.
Section snippets
Participants
One hundred and thirty-six undergraduate students (87 females and 49 males) of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (Israel) participated for partial fulfillment of course requirements and received course credit for participating. All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, had no history of attention deficit or dyslexia, were native speakers of Hebrew, and all were naive as to the purpose of the experiment. Participants who had more than a 15% error rate or an average RT of more
Results
First we will analyze each task separately and then we will address the correlations between tasks. For the stop-signal task we used the “Analyze-it” program (Verbruggen et al., 2008) for all results. All analyses in this study are based on data from all trials.
Discussion
In recent years many studies have demonstrated task conflict, or ‘task set competition’ in various tasks (e.g., Aarts et al., 2009, Banich, 2009, Braverman and Meiran, 2010, David et al., 2011, Monsell, 2003, Steinhauser and Hubner, 2009). Goldfarb and Henik (2007) demonstrated the existence of this conflict in the Stroop congruent condition and indicated that the task conflict is usually not behaviorally seen due to a very efficient task control mechanism. Similarly, La Heij, Boelens, and
Conclusions
Our findings suggest that the Stroop facilitation effect is highly affected by the efficiency of task control, which relies on inhibitory control – a novel suggestion considering that facilitation was not attributed to executive functions before. Thus, individual differences in inhibitory control can account for individual differences in the Stroop facilitation effect. These results support the suggestion that fast reaction to Stroop congruent trials requires fast resolution of the task
Acknowledgment
We thank Desiree Meloul for helpful comments and useful input on this article.
References (48)
- et al.
Attentional control of task and response in lateral and medial frontal cortex: Brain activity and reaction time distributions
Neuropsychologia
(2009) - et al.
Investigations of the functional anatomy of attention using the Stroop test
Neuropsychologia
(1993) The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
(2012)- et al.
Interference and facilitation effects during selective attention: An H215O PET study of Stroop task performance
NeuroImage
(1995) - et al.
A model of dual control mechanisms through anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex interactions
Neurocomputing
(2006) - et al.
Facilitation and interference effects in a Stroop-like task: Evidence in favor of semantic processing of parafoveally-presented stimuli
Acta Psychologica
(1993) - et al.
Color–object interference: Further tests of an executive control account
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
(2011) - et al.
Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: Uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
(2000) - et al.
Attentional control in the aging brain: Insights from an fMRI study of the Stroop task
Brain and Cognition
(2002) - et al.
The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis
Cognitive Psychology
(2000)
Task switching
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
Models of response inhibition in the stop-signal and stop-change paradigms
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
Task switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs
Cognitive Psychology
Task-switching, stimulus-response bindings and negative priming
A componential analysis of task-switching deficits associated with lesions of left and right frontal cortex
Brain
Executive function: The search for an integrated account
Current Directions in Psychological Science
Conflict monitoring and cognitive control
Psychological Review
Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex
Nature
Inhibitory control in mind and brain: An interactive race model of countermanding saccades
Psychological Review
Task conflict effect in task switching
Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung
Revealing list-level control in the Stroop task by uncovering its benefits and a cost
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
The contribution of the anterior cingulated cortex to executive processes in cognition
Reviews in Neuroscience
Anterior cingulate cortex, error detection, and the online monitoring of performance
Science
Cited by (27)
Neutral affordances: Task conflict in the affordances task
2022, Consciousness and CognitionCitation Excerpt :A similar pattern of results was reported by Shichel and Tzelgov (2018) who used a two-to-one variation of the Stroop task and found that while response conflict was still robust following the manipulation of neutral trial proportions, the streangth of task conflict weakend considerably. These findings are in line with past findings from the Stroop litrature that demostrated that the task control mechnism is highly efficient, resulting in weaker task conflict than response conflict in behavioral studies when control mechanisms are involved (e.g., Goldfarb & Henik, 2007; Kalanthroff & Henik, 2013). The findings of the current study demostrate a similar pattern of results in the affordances task, according to which response conflict is more robust and more resiliant than task conflict, and therfore still evident under the activation of control mechnisms.
Refuting the unfolding-argument on the irrelevance of causal structure to consciousness
2021, Consciousness and CognitionCitation Excerpt :Second, we have a second loop of conflict modulation (top unit), which goes from the response-conflict to the task-demand units (this upper loop is assumed to be mediated by the ACC (anterior cingulate cortex) brain area, and which accounts for trial-by-trial (or block) modulations in the amount of control deployed. Control models of this type (based on RNs), have been highly successful in accounting for much behavioral and neural data in a variety of studies (Braver, 2012; Gratton et al., 1992; Kalanthroff & Henik, 2013; Kalantroffet et al., 2017; Tzelgov et al., 1992). We challenge the FFN theorists to provide a parsimonious mechanism of cognitive control that can, both, modulate task-relevant behavior and account for the experimental data.
Brief, daily meditation enhances attention, memory, mood, and emotional regulation in non-experienced meditators
2019, Behavioural Brain ResearchCitation Excerpt :Facilitation is considered to be a measure of attention distinct from the Stroop interference effect [64], and like interference, is a process that relies on the anterior cingulate cortex [66]. Research has shown that individuals with better inhibitory control (as measured by reaction time on the stop-signal task) perform better on the congruent trials of the Stroop Task [67]. Though other studies have found that meditation enhances the Stroop interference effect [63,68], this is the first study to find that a brief meditation practice enhances facilitation.
More than just channeling: The role of subcortical mechanisms in executive functions – Evidence from the Stroop task
2018, Acta PsychologicaCitation Excerpt :In congruent trials, when both word color and word meaning are the same (e.g., BLUE printed in blue ink), RT is commonly shorter than in neutral trials. This effect, known as the facilitation effect, is smaller and more fragile than the interference effect (Dalrymple-Alford & Budayr, 1966; Kalanthroff & Henik, 2013). Both the interference and the facilitation effects indicate that word reading is an obligatory process that affects the performance on this task, and that executive functions are required to suppress the task-irrelevant information (Kalanthroff, Goldfarb, & Henik, 2013).
To Do or Not to Do? Task Control Deficit in Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
2017, Behavior TherapyCitation Excerpt :However, the notion that OCD patients experience difficulties in suppressing behaviors that are triggered by stimuli that automatically potentiate motor responses resonates with other findings in the literature. For example, OCD patients have recently been shown to have a smaller Stroop facilitation effect compared to HCs (Kalanthroff, Anholt, & Henik, 2014), which indicated they had difficulties in proactively inhibiting the irrelevant reading task (Kalanthroff & Henik, 2013, 2014). In addition, Gillan et al. (2011) found that OCD patients rely more on “automatic stimulus-driven behaviors” (or habits; Gillan et al., 2015, p. 284) due to impairments in their goal-directed system.
Stop checking: Repeated checking and its effects on response inhibition and doubt
2016, Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry