Yunji Lee, Paul Verhaeghen, Eliot Hazeltine, Eric H Schumacher
{"title":"一致性序列效应背后复杂机制的元分析证据。","authors":"Yunji Lee, Paul Verhaeghen, Eliot Hazeltine, Eric H Schumacher","doi":"10.1007/s00426-025-02093-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The congruency sequence effect (CSE) refers to a reduction in the congruency effect after incongruent trials compared to congruent trials in a conflict-inducing task. There is an ongoing debate about the mechanisms underlying the CSE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To help inform this debate, we conducted a meta-analysis of the relevant CSE studies published in the past 31 years (from 1992 to 2023). By measuring the mean effect sizes from various tasks and procedures, we examined to what extent the CSE results from top-down or bottom-up mechanisms and to what extent these mechanisms are local to the tasks performed or global to the experiment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results demonstrate that while the CSE was larger for studies that included bottom-up confounds (Hedges' g = 1.28), it was still robust and significant for studies that controlled for these confounds (Hedges' g = 0.95). Additionally, CSE was significant both within (Hedges' g = 1.54) and between tasks (Hedge's g = 0.27), but the effect was larger within a task. This suggests that the mechanisms driving the CSE affect both local and global control mechanisms. Furthermore, the current meta-analysis suggests that the congruency effect and CSE may not result from the same control mechanisms. Lastly, given that bottom-up confounds are easily controlled for in the prime probe and temporal flanker tasks, which produced a large CSE (Hedges' g = 1.13), these may be useful procedures to use to address future questions for CSE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, the present meta-analysis provides converging evidence for conclusions from previous studies of the CSE and highlights the complex factors that produce this effect.</p>","PeriodicalId":48184,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","volume":"89 2","pages":"63"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11885397/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-analytic evidence for the complex mechanisms underlying congruency sequence effect.\",\"authors\":\"Yunji Lee, Paul Verhaeghen, Eliot Hazeltine, Eric H Schumacher\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00426-025-02093-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The congruency sequence effect (CSE) refers to a reduction in the congruency effect after incongruent trials compared to congruent trials in a conflict-inducing task. There is an ongoing debate about the mechanisms underlying the CSE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To help inform this debate, we conducted a meta-analysis of the relevant CSE studies published in the past 31 years (from 1992 to 2023). By measuring the mean effect sizes from various tasks and procedures, we examined to what extent the CSE results from top-down or bottom-up mechanisms and to what extent these mechanisms are local to the tasks performed or global to the experiment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results demonstrate that while the CSE was larger for studies that included bottom-up confounds (Hedges' g = 1.28), it was still robust and significant for studies that controlled for these confounds (Hedges' g = 0.95). Additionally, CSE was significant both within (Hedges' g = 1.54) and between tasks (Hedge's g = 0.27), but the effect was larger within a task. This suggests that the mechanisms driving the CSE affect both local and global control mechanisms. Furthermore, the current meta-analysis suggests that the congruency effect and CSE may not result from the same control mechanisms. Lastly, given that bottom-up confounds are easily controlled for in the prime probe and temporal flanker tasks, which produced a large CSE (Hedges' g = 1.13), these may be useful procedures to use to address future questions for CSE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, the present meta-analysis provides converging evidence for conclusions from previous studies of the CSE and highlights the complex factors that produce this effect.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung\",\"volume\":\"89 2\",\"pages\":\"63\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11885397/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-025-02093-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-025-02093-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
简介:一致性序列效应(CSE)是指在冲突诱发任务中,不一致试验后的一致性效应比一致试验后的一致性效应降低。关于CSE背后的机制一直存在争论。方法:为了为这一争论提供信息,我们对过去31年(1992年至2023年)发表的相关CSE研究进行了荟萃分析。通过测量各种任务和程序的平均效应大小,我们检查了CSE在多大程度上是由自上而下或自下而上机制产生的,以及这些机制在多大程度上是执行任务的局部机制还是实验的全局机制。结果:结果表明,虽然CSE在包含自下而上混淆的研究中更大(Hedges' g = 1.28),但对于控制这些混淆的研究(Hedges' g = 0.95),它仍然是稳健且显著的。此外,CSE在任务内(Hedge’s g = 1.54)和任务间(Hedge’s g = 0.27)均显著,但在任务内的影响更大。这表明驱动CSE的机制同时影响本地和全局控制机制。此外,目前的荟萃分析表明,一致性效应和CSE可能不是由相同的控制机制产生的。最后,考虑到自下而上的混淆很容易控制在主要探针和时间侧客任务中,这产生了一个大的CSE(赫奇斯的g = 1.13),这些可能是用于解决CSE未来问题的有用程序。结论:总的来说,本荟萃分析为以前的CSE研究结论提供了趋同的证据,并突出了产生这种效应的复杂因素。
Meta-analytic evidence for the complex mechanisms underlying congruency sequence effect.
Introduction: The congruency sequence effect (CSE) refers to a reduction in the congruency effect after incongruent trials compared to congruent trials in a conflict-inducing task. There is an ongoing debate about the mechanisms underlying the CSE.
Methods: To help inform this debate, we conducted a meta-analysis of the relevant CSE studies published in the past 31 years (from 1992 to 2023). By measuring the mean effect sizes from various tasks and procedures, we examined to what extent the CSE results from top-down or bottom-up mechanisms and to what extent these mechanisms are local to the tasks performed or global to the experiment.
Results: Results demonstrate that while the CSE was larger for studies that included bottom-up confounds (Hedges' g = 1.28), it was still robust and significant for studies that controlled for these confounds (Hedges' g = 0.95). Additionally, CSE was significant both within (Hedges' g = 1.54) and between tasks (Hedge's g = 0.27), but the effect was larger within a task. This suggests that the mechanisms driving the CSE affect both local and global control mechanisms. Furthermore, the current meta-analysis suggests that the congruency effect and CSE may not result from the same control mechanisms. Lastly, given that bottom-up confounds are easily controlled for in the prime probe and temporal flanker tasks, which produced a large CSE (Hedges' g = 1.13), these may be useful procedures to use to address future questions for CSE.
Conclusion: Overall, the present meta-analysis provides converging evidence for conclusions from previous studies of the CSE and highlights the complex factors that produce this effect.
期刊介绍:
Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung publishes articles that contribute to a basic understanding of human perception, attention, memory, and action. The Journal is devoted to the dissemination of knowledge based on firm experimental ground, but not to particular approaches or schools of thought. Theoretical and historical papers are welcome to the extent that they serve this general purpose; papers of an applied nature are acceptable if they contribute to basic understanding or serve to bridge the often felt gap between basic and applied research in the field covered by the Journal.