Search

Encountering a cognitive conflict not only slows current performance, but it can also affect subsequent performance, in particular when the conflict is induced with bivalent stimuli (i.e., stimuli with relevant features for two different tasks) or with incongruent trials (i.e., stimuli with relevant features for two response alternatives). The post-conflict slowing following bivalent stimuli, called 'bivalency effect', affects all subsequent stimuli, irrespective of whether the subsequent stimuli share relevant features with the conflict stimuli. To date, it is unknown whether the conflict induced by incongruent stimuli results in a similar post-conflict slowing. To investigate this, we performed six experiments in which participants switched between two tasks. In one task, incongruent stimuli appeared occasionally; in the other task, stimuli shared no feature with the incongruent trials. The results showed an initial performance slowing that affected all tasks after incongruent trials. On further trials, however, the slowing only affected the task sharing features with the conflict stimuli. Therefore, the post-conflict slowing following incongruent stimuli is first general and then becomes conflict-specific across trials. These findings are discussed within current task switching and cognitive control accounts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]