dc.contributor.author | Best, M | |
dc.contributor.author | McLaren, IPL | |
dc.contributor.author | Verbruggen, F | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-01-25T10:44:27Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2019-02-04 | |
dc.description.abstract | Inhibitory 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.sponsorship | Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) | en_GB |
dc.identifier.citation | Vol. 2 (1). Published online 04 February 2019. | en_GB |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.5334/joc.53 | |
dc.identifier.grantnumber | ES/J00815X/1 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.grantnumber | ES/J50015X/1 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10871/35588 | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_GB |
dc.publisher | Ubiquity Press | en_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.title | Instructed and acquired contingencies in response-inhibition tasks | en_GB |
dc.type | Article | en_GB |
dc.date.available | 2019-01-25T10:44:27Z | |
dc.description | This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Ubiquity Press via the DOI in this record. | en_GB |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2514-4820 | |
dc.identifier.journal | Journal of Cognition | en_GB |
dc.rights.uri | http://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved | en_GB |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2019-01-06 | |
exeter.funder | ::Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) | en_GB |
rioxxterms.funder | European Research Council | en_GB |
rioxxterms.funder | European Research Council | en_GB |
rioxxterms.identifier.project | 312445 | en_GB |
rioxxterms.identifier.project | 769595 | en_GB |
rioxxterms.version | AM | en_GB |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2019-01-06 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | en_GB |
refterms.dateFCD | 2019-01-25T09:54:32Z | |
refterms.versionFCD | AM | |
refterms.dateFOA | 2019-02-08T15:28:59Z | |
refterms.panel | A | en_GB |
rioxxterms.funder.project | aabaa845-73cc-4282-82d2-0510a64658df | en_GB |
rioxxterms.funder.project | 7b177cf0-166a-4fee-9bbb-e55d0f1baf1d | en_GB |