Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBest, M
dc.contributor.authorMcLaren, IPL
dc.contributor.authorVerbruggen, F
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-25T10:44:27Z
dc.date.issued2019-02-04
dc.description.abstractInhibitory control can be triggered directly via the retrieval of previously acquired stimulusstop associations from memory. However, a recent study suggests that this item-specific stop learning may be mediated via expectancies of the contingencies in play (Best, Lawrence, Logan, McLaren, & Verbruggen, 2016). This could indicate that stimulus-stop learning also induces strategic, proactive changes in performance. We further tested this hypothesis in the present study. In addition to measuring expectancies following task completion, we introduced a between-subjects expectancy manipulation in which one group of participants were informed about the stimulus-stop contingencies and another group did not receive any information about the stimulus-stop contingencies. Moreover, we combined this instruction manipulation with a distractor manipulation that was previously used to examine strategic proactive adjustments. We found that the stop-associated items slowed responding in both conditions. Furthermore, participants in both conditions generated expectancies following task completion that were consistent with the stimulus-stop contingencies. The distractor manipulation was ineffective. However, we found differences in the relationship between the expectancy ratings and task performance: in the instructed condition, the expectancies reliably correlated with the response slowing for the stop-associated items, whereas in the uninstructed condition we found no reliable correlation. These differences between the correlations were reliable, and our conclusions were further supported by Bayesian analyses. We conclude that stimulus-stop associations that are acquired either via task instructions or via task practice have similar effects on behavior but could differ in how they elicit response slowing.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipEconomic and Social Research Council (ESRC)en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 2 (1). Published online 04 February 2019.en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.5334/joc.53
dc.identifier.grantnumberES/J00815X/1en_GB
dc.identifier.grantnumberES/J50015X/1en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/35588
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherUbiquity Pressen_GB
dc.rights© 2019 The Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.titleInstructed and acquired contingencies in response-inhibition tasksen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2019-01-25T10:44:27Z
dc.descriptionThis is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Ubiquity Press via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.eissn2514-4820
dc.identifier.journalJournal of Cognitionen_GB
dc.rights.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-01-06
exeter.funder::Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)en_GB
rioxxterms.funderEuropean Research Councilen_GB
rioxxterms.funderEuropean Research Councilen_GB
rioxxterms.identifier.project312445en_GB
rioxxterms.identifier.project769595en_GB
rioxxterms.versionAMen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-01-06
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2019-01-25T09:54:32Z
refterms.versionFCDAM
refterms.dateFOA2019-02-08T15:28:59Z
refterms.panelAen_GB
rioxxterms.funder.projectaabaa845-73cc-4282-82d2-0510a64658dfen_GB
rioxxterms.funder.project7b177cf0-166a-4fee-9bbb-e55d0f1baf1den_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record