Conference PaperPDF Available

Dramatically larger Flanker effects (6-fold elevation).

April 2006

DOI:10.13140/RG.2.1.4289.8402

Conference: Cognitive Neuroscience Society Annual Meeting
At: San Francisco, CA

Authors:

Sarah Munro

Covalent Data

Cecil M Y Chau

University of British Columbia - Vancouver

Karine Gazarian

Adele Diamond

University of British Columbia - Vancouver

The classic Flanker effect is highly replicable but relatively small and fragile (i.e., very sensitive to stimulus characteristics). We hypothesized that the reason for that is because subjects can settle into concentrating on the central location. We therefore predicted that if a switching component were added, requiring subjects to sometimes focus on the flankers and sometimes on the central stimulus, that the flanker effect would be far larger and far more robust (less sensitive to stimulus size or distance between stimuli). Our prediction was resoundingly confirmed. The Flanker effect was dramatically larger in the mixed-condition than in single-task blocks (in both cases comparing non-switch incongruent and congruent trials). It was also much less sensitive to variations in stimulus characteristics. All subjects in Study 2 and half the subjects in Study 1 were tested with a Separated Cue (the Background Color): Rules: If blue background, If pink background, focus on the INSIDE stimulus focus on the OUTSIDE stimulus The other 50% of subjects in Study 1 were tested with an Integrated Cue (the Stimulus Shape): Rules: If images are, If images are, focus on the INSIDE stimulus focus on the OUTSIDE stimulus

Content uploaded by Adele Diamond

Content may be subject to copyright.

E81

ABBREVIATED ABSTRACT

The classic Flanker effect is highly replicable but relatively small

and fragile (i.e., very sensitive to stimulus characteristics).

We hypothesized that the reason for that is because subjects

can settle into concentrating on the central location.

We therefore predicted that if a switching component were

added, requiring subjects to sometimes focus on the flankers

and sometimes on the central stimulus, that the flanker effect

would be far larger and far more robust (less sensitive to

stimulus size or distance between stimuli).

Our prediction was resoundingly confirmed. The Flanker

effect was dramatically larger in the mixed-condition than in

single-task blocks (in both cases comparing non-switch

incongruent and congruent trials). It was also much less

sensitive to variations in stimulus characteristics.

METHODS

All subjects received 3 kinds of trial blocks:

Inside-Only Outside-Only Both Trial Types Intermixed

10 practice trials before each 16 practice trials

70 trials per block 180 trials

In Study 1, the stimuli were larger & farther apart than in Study 2:

These are the stimulus parameters

used in most Flanker experiments.

Half the subjects were tested with Iconic Stimuli:

< > or

Rule: Press where the stimulus is pointing

Half were tested with Symbolic Stimuli: e.g., or

Rules: For White, press Left. For Black, press Right.

All subjects in Study 2 and half the subjects in Study 1

were tested with a Separated Cue (the Background Color):

Rules: If blue background, If pink background,

focus on the INSIDE stimulus focus on the OUTSIDE stimulus

The other 50% of subjects in Study 1

were tested with an Integrated Cue (the Stimulus Shape):

Rules: If images are, If images are,

focus on the INSIDE stimulus focus on the OUTSIDE stimulus

Study 1: 96 young adults Study 2: 32 young adults

Both studies: 50% female; mean age 22 years

50% Chinese Canadians; 50% European Canadians

36 mm x 36 mm 8 mm

Sample

Stimulus

in Study 1

16 mm x 16 mm 3 mm

Sample

Stimulus

in Study 2

36 mm x 36 mm 8 mm

Sample

Stimulus

in Study 1

16 mm x 16 mm 3 mm

Sample

Stimulus

in Study 2

INSIDE OUTSIDE

INSIDE < >

OUTSIDE

Half the subjects received Inside-Only first.

Half the subjects received Outside-Only first.

< >

OUTSIDE



Study 1 included one block of each type, the single-task blocks

before the Mixed block.

Study 2 included single-task blocks of only Inside and only

Outside trials both before and after the Mixed block

(counterbalancing the order of the 2 single-task blocks).

Dramatically Larger Flanker Effects

Sarah Munro, Cecil Chau, Karine Gazarian, & Adele Diamond

Department of Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, 2255 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 2A1 email: adele.diamond@ubc.ca

or or

80x larger in mixed block

227 msec difference

Block 1 (Standard Flanker) vs. Block 3 (Mixed Block)

Inside

Non-Switch Trials Only

STUDY 1:

Large Stimuli,

Farther Apart

100

150

200

250

300

BLOCK

BLOCK 3

(MIXED)

14x larger in mixed block

163 msec difference

Flanker Effect in msec

BLOCK

BLOCK 3

(MIXED)

STUDY 2:

Smaller,

Closer Stimuli

6x larger in mixed block

108 msec difference

100

150

200

250

300

16x larger in mixed block

223 msec difference

BLOCK

BLOCK 3

(MIXED)

BLOCK

BLOCK 3

(MIXED)

STUDY 2

Block 1 vs. Block 3 (Mixed Block)

Outside

Non-Switch Trials Only

Flanker Effect in Block 1 vs. Block 3 (Mixed Block) Non-Switch Trials

SEPARATED

CUE

INTEGRATED

CUE

100

150

200

250

300

BLOCK

BLOCK 3

(MIXED)

BLOCK

BLOCK 3

(MIXED)

14x larger in mixed block

123 msec difference

6x larger in mixed block

74 msec difference

STUDY 1

Flanker Effect in msec

SEPARATED

CUE

INTEGRATED

CUE

100

150

200

250

300

BLOCK

BLOCK 3

(MIXED)

BLOCK

BLOCK 3

(MIXED)

75x larger in mixed block

213 msec difference

72x larger in mixed block

144 msec difference

Flanker Effect in msec

Both studies show a large increase in the Flanker effect between the standard Flanker condition (Block

1; focus on the Inside figure) and the Mixed-Task block (Block 3; on some trials focus on the Inside and

on some trials focus on the Outside).

RT was longer on all trials in the Mixed Block, but as the right-hand figure shows, the Flanker effect is

still much amplified in the Mixed Block when the effect is scaled to the baseline (Congruent) RT.

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

BLOCK

BLOCK 3

(MIXED)

BLOCK

BLOCK 3

(MIXED)

STUDY 1:

Large Stimuli,

Farther Apart

STUDY 2:

Smaller,

Closer Stimuli

3x larger in mixed block 3x larger in mixed block

Relative Flanker Effect

Flanker Effect in msec

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

BLOCK

BLOCK 3

(MIXED)

BLOCK

BLOCK 3

(MIXED)

STUDY 2

STUDY 1

49x larger in mixed block 10x larger in mixed block

Relative Flanker Effect

INSIDE

Main Result, 1:

FAR LARGER FLANKER EFFECT IN MIXED BLOCK

“Outside” Trials (ignore the center stimulus) also show a dramatic increase in the “Flanker” effect

between the Single-Task block (focus only on the Outside stimuli) and the Mixed-Task block (on some

trials focus on the Inside, on some trials focus on the Outside) This was true for both studies and for .

both the absolute “Flanker” effect and correcting for longer RTs in the Mixed Block (right-hand figure).

Regardless of whether the cue indicating which rule to follow (focus on central figure or flankers) was

part of the stimuli (their shape – the Integrated Cue condition) or external to the stimuli (the background

color – the Separated Cue condition), the Flanker effect was much larger in the Mixed Block than in the

Single Task Block. This was true for the standard flanker condition and for focus-on-the-flanker trials.

OUTSIDE

Relative RT difference: (I – C) / CRT Difference: Incongruent minus Congruent

Relative RT difference: (I – C) / C

RT Difference: Incongruent minus Congruent

Main Result, 2:

MORE ROBUST FLANKER EFFECT IN MIXED BLOCK

(Less sensitive to changes in stimulus size or dispersion)

Larger, Farther Apart Stimuli (Study 1) vs. Smaller, Closer Stimuli (Study 2) for

Standard Flanker Blocks and Mixed Blocks (Inside Non-Switch Trials)

BLOCK 1

(Standard Flanker) BLOCK 3

(Mixed Block)

STUDY 1 STUDY 2 STUDY 1 STUDY 2

300

100

150

200

250

Squares vs. Arrows for Standard and Mixed Blocks Inside Non-Switch Trials

100

150

200

250

300 BLOCK 1

(Standard Flanker) BLOCK 3

(MIXED)

SQUARES ARROWS SQUARES ARROWS

100

150

200

250

300 BLOCK 1

(Standard

Flanker)

BLOCK 3

(MIXED) BLOCK 5

(Standard

Flanker)

Squares Arrows Squares Arrows Squares Arrows

Early or late in the session, before or after the

Mixed Block, the Flanker effect was far

smaller when subjects did not have to change

the focus of their attention, whether they were

focusing on the center or on the outside.

The size of the flanker effect for inside-only

or outside-only trials was similar in Blocks 1,

2, 4, and 5. This also indicates that the size of

the Flanker effect was not affected by the

preceding block of trials.

The much larger Flanker effect in the Mixed

block cannot be explained by practice effects.

NOT DUE TO PRACTICE EFFECTS

100

150

200

250

300 Block 1 Block 2 Block 4 Block 5

Block 3

(Mixed)

Flanker Effect by Block for Study 2 Non-Switch Trials Only

Consistent with past studies, we found a larger

Flanker effect in the Standard Flanker task block

(Block 1) when the stimuli were smaller and

closer (Study 2) than when they were larger and

farther apart (Study 1). The Flanker effect was far

smaller with the larger stimuli.

However, in the Mixed-task block, the Flanker

effect was much less sensitive to the size or

dispersion of the stimuli. There was no significant

difference in the size of the Flanker effect in the

Mixed block in Studies 1 or 2.

Summary for Main Result, 1: Block 1 vs. Block 3 Non-Switch Trials

100

150

200

250

300 Block 1

(Single-Task Block) Block 3

(Mixed Block)

In In

Out Out

Flanker Effect in msec

Smaller, Closer Stimuli (Study 2) Only

In the standard flanker condition, the type of stimulus used significantly affected the size of the Flanker

effect. The Flanker effect was much larger for Iconic Stimuli (Arrows) than for Symbolic Stimuli

(Squares). However, in the Mixed-task block, the Flanker effect was insensitive to stimulus type. There

was no significant difference in the size of the Flanker effect in the Mixed block whether arrows or

squares served as the stimuli.

IN OUT IN OUT

IN OUT

Studies 1 and 2 Combined

Stimulus Size: Large

Study 1

Small

Study 2

Large

Study 1

Small

Study 2

In In

Out Out

Stimulus Size: Large Small Large Small

IN SUMMARY, regardless of

- stimulus size or the distance between stimuli

(Study 1 vs. Study 2),

- whether subjects had to focus on the Inside or

the Outside on a given trial,

- whether the cue was Integrated with the stimuli

or the color of the background, or

- whether the Flanker effect was calculated as

Incongruent minus Congruent RT or the ratio of

that to baseline (Congruent) RT,

the Flanker effect was dramatically larger when

subjects could not stay focused on just the

inside or just the outside, but had to periodically

switch the focus of their attention across trials.

CONCLUSIONS

MAIN FINDINGS:

•When observers were allowed to consistently focus on a

specific area (either Inside-only or Outside-only), the Flanker

effect was much smaller than when subjects did not know in

advance whether the target would be in the center or the outside.

•The Flanker effect for Inside-only and Outside-only blocks

was very susceptible to disruption by increasing the size and

dispersion of the stimuli or by using stimuli less directly, auto-

matically tied to the response.

•When observers had to randomly switch mindsets and the

focus of their attention across trials (Mixed block), the Flanker

effect increased dramatically in size and became significantly

more robust and resistant to disruption due to changes in the

physical

•The much larger Flanker effect in the Mixed block was true

regardless of stimulus type (iconic or symbolic), stimulus size or

spacing (large, farther apart or small, closer together), cue-type

(an integrated aspect of the stimuli themselves or the color of the

background), block order (whether preceded by a block where all

trials had the other rule, intermixed rules, or no preceding block),

whether early or late in a session, which rule was in effect (press

where the central stimulus tells you, or press where the outer

stimuli tell you), or how flanker effect was calculated (diffference

in absolute RT or that difference as a fraction of baseline RT).

•The dramatically larger Flanker effect in the Mixed block cannot

be attributed to practice effects or longer to RTs on all trials in the

Mixed block.

OTHER FINDINGS:

•Gender and age had no significant effect on RT or the Flanker

effect.

•Participants whose first language was Chinese showed larger

Flanker effects than non-Chinese participants for trials in which

the outer stimuli were the target.

This research was supported by an R01 grant from NIDA (#DA19685-16A2).

Besides congruent and incongruent trial types, there

Distractor and Neutral trials:

Percentage of each trial type was: 43% Incongruent, 29% Congruent,

14% Neutral, and 14% No-Distractor trials.

Mean RT for each Trial Type

for Inside, Non-Switch Trials in Study 2

BLOCK 1

(Standard Flanker) BLOCK 3 (MIXED)

RT in msec

415

425

435

445

455

465

475

485

495

505

Cong Neu Incong

No-

Dis

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

Cong Neu Incong

No-

Dis

Congruent and No-Distractor trials were equally easy in the standard

Flanker task, but No-Distractor trials were far easier in the Mixed condition.

were also No-

Order of trial types was counterbalanced within blocks.



INSIDE INSIDE OUTSIDE

OUTSIDE

OUTSIDE OUTSIDE

INSIDE <>

INSIDE

OUTSIDE



No Distractor No DistractorNeutral Neutral

INSIDE OUTSIDE

SEPARATED CUE

INTEGRATED CUE

INSIDE <>

INSIDE

First Demonstration of Double Dissociation between COMT-Met158 and COMT-Val158 Cognitive Performance When Stressed and When Calmer

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2020
CEREB CORTEX

We present here the first evidence of the much-predicted double dissociation between the effect of stress on cognitive skills [executive functions (EFs)] dependent on prefrontal cortex (PFC) by catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) genotype. The COMT gene polymorphism with methionine (Met) at codon 158 results in more dopamine (DA) in PFC and generally better EFs, while with valine (Val) at codon 158 the result is less PFC DA and generally poorer EFs. Many have predicted that mild stress, by raising PFC DA levels should aid EFs of COMT-Vals (bringing their PFC DA levels up, closer to optimal) and impair EFs of COMT-Mets (raising their PFC DA levels past optimal). We tested 140 men and women in a within-subject crossover design using extremely mild social evaluative stress. On trials requiring EFs (incongruent trials) of the Flanker/Reverse Flanker task, COMT-Val158 homozygotes performed better when mildly stressed than when calmer, while COMT-Met158 carriers performed worse when mildly stressed. Two other teams previously tried to obtain this, but only found stress impairing EFs of COMT-Mets, not improving EFs of COMT-Vals. Perhaps we found both because we used a much milder stressor. Evidently, the bandwidth for stress having a facilitative effect on EFs is exceedingly narrow.

The role of cognitive flexibility and inhibition in complex dynamic tasks: the case of sight reading music https://rdcu.be/b52wV

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2022
CURR PSYCHOL

Sight reading (SR) is a dynamic task which requires the performance of the music printed in a score whithout previous practice (Lehmann and McArthur 2002). Our main aim was to analyse how cognitive flexibility and the inhibitory processes involved in the control of interference of irrelevant stimulus and in the suppression of preponderant actions or responses, could differently contribute to fluency and accuracy in SR, as a function of the conditions of difficulty of the SR tasks. We also aimed to determine if these contributions were independent of instrument knowledge. 63 students of melodic instruments participated in the study. The results revealed a significant contribution of the inhibitory processes involved in the suppression of preponderant actions or responses to both fluency and accuracy, even in low difficult conditions of the SR tasks. Our results also revealed significant contributions of cognitive flexibility to fluency and of resistance to interference to accuracy only in high difficult conditions of the SR tasks. All these contributions were independent of instrument knowledge.

Referential context and executive functioning influence children's resolution of syntactic ambiguity

Article

Jun 2020

Classic studies reveal two striking differences between preschoolers and adults in online sentence comprehension. Adults (a) recruit referential context cues to guide syntactic parsing, interpreting an ambiguous phrase as a modifier if a modifier is needed to single out the intended referent among multiple options, and (b) use late-arriving information to recover from misinterpretation. Five-year-olds fail on both counts, appearing insensitive to the referential context and often failing to recover from parsing errors (Trueswell, Sekerina, Hill, & Logrip, 1999). But other findings suggest that 5-year-olds show delayed rather than absent sensitivity to the referential context, and that individual differences in executive functioning predict children's ability to recover from garden-path errors. In 2 experiments, we built on these findings, focusing on whether children recruit referential-context cues if given time to do so. Children heard temporarily ambiguous instructions (e.g., Put the frog on the pond into the tent), while we monitored their eye-gaze and actions. We used a slow speech rate, and manipulated referential context between rather than within subjects, to give children time to bring referential context cues into play. Across experiments, eye-movement and action analyses revealed emerging sensitivity to the referential context. Moreover, error rates and eye-movement patterns indicating failures to revise were predicted by individual differences in executive function (scores in Simon Says and Flanker tasks). These data suggest that children, like adults, use referential context information in syntactic processing under some circumstances; the findings are also consistent with a role for domain-general executive function in resolution of syntactic ambiguity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Referential Context and Executive Functioning Influence Children’s Resolution of Syntactic Ambiguity

Preprint

May 2020

Classic studies reveal two striking differences between preschoolers and adults in online sentence comprehension. Adults (a) recruit referential context cues to guide syntactic parsing, interpreting an ambiguous phrase as a modifier if a modifier is needed to single out the intended referent among multiple options, and (b) use late-arriving information to recover from misinterpretation. Five-year-olds fail on both counts, appearing insensitive to the referential context, and often failing to recover from parsing errors (Trueswell et al., 1999). But other findings suggest that 5-year-olds show delayed rather than absent sensitivity to the referential context, and that individual differences in executive functioning predict children's ability to recover from garden-path errors. In two experiments, we built on these findings, focusing on whether children recruit referential-context cues if given time to do so. Children heard temporarily ambiguous instructions (e.g., Put the frog on the pond into the tent), while we monitored their eye-gaze and actions. We used a slow speech rate, and manipulated referential context between rather than within subjects, to give children time to bring referential context cues into play. Across experiments, eye-movement and action analyses revealed emerging sensitivity to the referential context. Moreover, error rates and eye-movement patterns indicating failures to revise were predicted by individual differences in executive function (scores in Simon Says and Flanker tasks). These data suggest that children, like adults, use referential context information in syntactic processing under some circumstances; the findings are also consistent with a role for domain-general executive function in resolution of syntactic ambiguity.

Development of Executive Function and its relation to Mathematical Abilty: Scale and Graph Understanding

Article

Mar 2014

The present study investigated age-related development in executive functions (EF), specifically, inhibition and shifting factors, and to explore their relationship with children`s understanding of two critical mathematical concepts: measurement and graph. Our sample included one hundred ninety-five 8- to 11-year-old children living in Seoul and Gyeongi-do, South Korea. Given the high performance of Korean students on EF tasks, we used Monro et al.`s (2006) task with easy and difficult phases to measure EF abilities. The major results of our study are as follows. First, shifting ability, but not inhibition ability, significantly improved between 9 and 10 years of age . Furthermore, shifting score was strongly related to both measurement and graph scores, but inhibition was unrelated to both. Our findings support the idea that shifting plays a critical role in learning mathematics.

The Development of Metaphor Comprehension and Its Relationship with Relational Verbal Reasoning and Executive Function

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2016
PLOS ONE

Our main objective was to analyse the different contributions of relational verbal reasoning (analogical and class inclusion) and executive functioning to metaphor comprehension across development. We postulated that both relational reasoning and executive functioning should predict individual and developmental differences. However, executive functioning would become increasingly involved when metaphor comprehension is highly demanding, either because of the metaphors’ high difficulty (relatively novel metaphors in the absence of a context) or because of the individual’s special processing difficulties, such as low levels of reading experience or low semantic knowledge. Three groups of participants, 11-year-olds, 15-year-olds and young adults, were assessed in different relational verbal reasoning tasks—analogical and class-inclusion—and in executive functioning tasks—updating information in working memory, inhibition, and shifting. The results revealed clear progress in metaphor comprehension between ages 11 and 15 and between ages 15 and 21. However, the importance of executive function in metaphor comprehension was evident by age 15 and was restricted to updating information in working memory and cognitive inhibition. Participants seemed to use two different strategies to interpret metaphors: relational verbal reasoning and executive functioning. This was clearly shown when comparing the performance of the "more efficient" participants in metaphor interpretation with that of the "less efficient” ones. Whereas in the first case none of the executive variables or those associated with relational verbal reasoning were significantly related to metaphor comprehension, in the latter case, both groups of variables had a clear predictor effect.

Development of Executive Function in Early childhood and its relation to Self-Regulation: Focus on Delay of Gratification

Article

Jun 2019

A developmental study of the bat/ball problem of CRT: How to override the bias and its relation to executive functioning. https://rdcu.be/bxE39

Article

Apr 2019

In two experiments, we explored the nature of the bias observed in the bat/ball problem of the cognitive reflection test (Frederick, 2005, J. Econ. Perspect., 19, 25), how to override it, and its relation to executive functioning. Based on the original bat/ball problem, we designed two additional isomorphic items. In Experiment 1, for four age groups, including 7‐, 11‐, and 15‐year‐olds and adults, we determined that the bias is related to the System 1 intervention; the performance in this item was not a matter of mathematical ability and it could be facilitated by changing the order in which the problems were presented. In Experiment 2, we determined that for 15‐year‐olds, good and bad performances in the item were related to executive functioning, particularly response‐distractor inhibition, updating information in working memory, and the regulation of attention; however, subtle differences were identified when the problem was performed in a facilitative context compared with a non‐facilitative context. The results indicated that cognitive abilities are a necessary but non‐sufficient condition to resolve the problem.

All or None Hypothesis: A Global-Default Mode That Characterizes the Brain and Mind

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2009

Adele Diamond

It is proposed that the mind and brain often work at a gross level and only with fine tuning or inhibition act in a more differentiated manner, even when one might think the domains being issued the global command should be distinct. This applies to disparate findings in cognitive science and neuroscience in both children and adults. Thus, it is easier to switch everything, or nothing, than to switch one thing (the rule one is following or which button to press) but not the other. It is easier to issue the same command to both hands than to move only one hand. If one needs to respond to the opposite (or antonym) of a stimulus, one is faster if the correct response is to the side opposite the stimulus. People tend to think of the nervous system as sending out very precise commands only to the relevant recipient, but it appears that often the command goes out more globally and then parts of the system need to be inhibited from acting on the command.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.