A spatial version of the Stroop task for examining proactive and reactive control independently from non-conflict processes

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics (2024) 86:1259–1286 https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-024-02892-9 A spatial version of the Stroop task for examining proactive and reactive control independently from non‑conflict processes Giacomo Spinelli1 · Stephen J. Lupker2 Accepted: 1 April 2024 / Published online: 30 April 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract Conflict-induced control refers to humans’ ability to regulate attention in the processing of target information (e.g., the color of a word in the color-word Stroop task) based on experience with conflict created by distracting information (e.g., an incongruent color word), and to do so either in a proactive (preparatory) or a reactive (stimulus-driven) fashion. Interest in conflict-induced control has grown recently, as has the awareness that effects attributed to those processes might be affected by conflict-unrelated processes (e.g., the learning of stimulus-response associations). This awareness has resulted in the recommendation to move away from traditional interference paradigms with small stimulus/response sets and towards paradigms with larger sets (at least four targets, distractors, and responses), paradigms that allow better control of non-conflict processes. Using larger sets, however, is not always feasible. Doing so in the Stroop task, for example, would require either multiple arbitrary responses that are difficult for participants to learn (e.g., manual responses to colors) or non-arbitrary responses that can be difficult for researchers to collect (e.g., vocal responses in online experiments). Here, we present a spatial version of the Stroop task that solves many of those problems. In this task, participants respond to one of six directions indicated by an arrow, each requiring a specific, non-arbitrary manual response, while ignoring the location where the arrow is displayed. We illustrate the usefulness of this task by showing the results of two experiments in which evidence for proactive and reactive control was obtained while controlling for the impact of non-conflict processes. Keywords Conflict-induced control · Proactive control · Reactive control · Stroop · Proportion-congruent effect Introduction Significance statement: There is growing evidence consistent with the idea that the detrimental impact that distracting information has on processing relevant information can be reduced by regulating attention in a preparatory or stimulus-driven fashion. However, in many experimental paradigms, this evidence is not “pure” because performance is contaminated by processes that are unrelated to distraction. Here, we present an experimental paradigm that allows an examination of distraction-related processes independently from distraction-unrelated processes. The paradigm is easy for researchers and participants to use, even outside the laboratory, and produces robust effects that reflect preparatory and stimulus-driven processes involved in the regulation of attention. * Giacomo Spinelli * Stephen J. Lupker 1 Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Piazza dell’Ateneo Nuovo 1, 20126 Milano, MI, Italy 2 Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5C2, Canada It has long been known that some form of control is required in human goal-oriented behavior in order to prevent distractions from disrupting that behavior (e.g., Miller & Cohen, 2001). In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in the dynamic nature of the relevant control processes (e.g., Chiu & Egner, 2019). According to these ideas, humans are able to regulate attention when processing a task-relevant stimulus component, or target (e.g., the color of a word in the color-word Stroop (1935) task), based on, most typically, experience with conflicting information created by a taskirrelevant stimulus component, or distractor (e.g., an incongruent color word).1 According to the Dual-Mechanisms 1 Since Stroop (1935) introduced the standard, color-word version of the task, several other versions have been developed that are commonly called “Stroop” or “Stroop-like” tasks despite involving, in some cases, neither words or colors. Here, we rely on Kornblum’s (1992) model for a taxonomy of “ensembles”, or types of interference tasks (i.e., tasks involving stimuli which involve an easily processed irrelevant component – the distractor – that needs to be ignored and a Vol.:(0123456789) 1260 of Control framework (Braver, 2012), this conflict-induced attention regulation can occur in two ways. First, it can occur proactively when conflict is anticipated and selective attention in processing target information (e.g., the color in a Stroop stimulus) is increased in a preparatory fashion. Second, it can occur reactively, with selective attention being regulated “on the fly” in response to irrelevant but potentially distracting information (e.g., an incongruent word). Popular paradigms used to examine proactive and reactive control are Proportion-Congruent (PC) paradigms (Bugg & Crump, 2012). These paradigms involve contrasting MostlyCongruent (MC) situations, in which most of the experimental trials are congruent (e.g., the word RED in the color red), with Mostly-Incongruent (MI) situations, in which most of the experimental trials are incongruent (e.g., the word RED in the color blue). In “list-wide” PC paradigms, the two situations being contrasted are two lists of trials, i.e., an MC list mostly composed of congruent stimuli and an MI list mostly composed of incongruent stimuli. The typical result is a larger congruency effect (i.e., the performance difference between incongruent and congruent trials) in the MC list than in the MI list (e.g., Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979). This list-wide PC effect has often been interpreted (e.g., Botvinick et al., 2001) as being the result of a process of control adjustment occurring in advance of stimulus presentation – an item-nonspecific, proactive form of control. More specifically, proactive control would be engaged in the MI list, a type of list in which the high frequency of incongruent distractors, distractors that are assumed to produce conflict, leads individuals to anticipate conflict and prepare for it by increasing selective attention before the stimulus appears. The result is a reduced congruency effect in that situation. In the MC list, on the other hand, the low frequency of conflict creates little anticipation and, therefore, little advanced preparation for conflict. Hence, conflict, when it arises, must be dealt with at the time that it occurs – a reactive form of control. The result is an increased congruency effect in that situation. Therefore, although in many accounts, proactive and reactive control are both involved in the list-wide PC Footnote 1 (continued) less easily processed relevant component – the target – that requires, most typically, an identification response). Following Kornblum’s model, we will refer to our tas (...truncated)