Context-dependent cognitive control in virtual reality

Cognitive control allows humans to process relevant information in the presence of distracting irrelevant information. Previous research has shown that humans automatically adapt the degree of cognitive control depending on control demands (e.g., how often conflict between task-relevant and task-irrelevant information arises), for example resulting in increased cognitive control after a conflict trial (termed conflict adaptation; see Clayson & Larson, 2013). Interestingly, adjustments of cognitive control are not just limited to reactions to specific events such as conflict trials, but can also be observed when control demands differ between contexts. Contexts can be different lists of trials (Lindsay & Jacoby, 1994; Logan & Zbrodoff, 1979), specific items (Bugg, Jacoby, & Chanani, 2011) or context features such as different locations (Crump, Gong, & Milliken, 2006; Fischer, Gottschalk, & Dreisbach, 2014; King, Korb, & Egner, 2012). If a certain context (e.g., a specific location on the screen) is paired with frequent conflict processing, this requires frequent recruitment of cognitive control. Over time, this context then becomes associated with this attentional control state (Bugg & Crump, 2012), resulting in reduced conflict effects (as measured via response time differences between incongruent and congruent trials). This effect is called context-specific proportion congruence (CSPC) effect (Crump et al., 2006; Crump & Milliken, 2009; Crump, Vaquero, & Milliken, 2008). The CSPC effect has often been investigated by using stimulus location on the computer screen as a context (i.e., trials appearing above the fixation cross are mostly incongruent, trials appearing below the fixation cross are mostly congruent). Here, we ask if CPSC effects also emerge in more complex and realistic contexts in the form of virtual environment. In the present study, participants perform a numerical Stroop task (Henik & Tzelgov, 1982) that presents two digits with different physical sizes. Participants have to indicate which digit is numerically smaller. In congruent trials, physical size and numerical size match (i.e., the numerically smaller digit is also smaller in size), while in incongruent trials, physical size and numerical size are in conflict (i.e., the numerically smaller digit is physically larger). Participants perform this task while wearing a virtual reality (VR) headset. During the experiment, the VR environment changes randomly on a trial-to-trial basis between a forest and a living room. Unbeknownst to participants, in one environment a higher proportion of incongruent trials occurs (high demand context) and in the other environment a higher proportion of congruent trial occurs (low demand context). If CSPC occur in this case, we would expect reduced conflict effects (response times in incongruent trials - congruent trials) in the high demand context as compared to the low demand context. References Bugg, J. M., & Crump, M. J. C. (2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: A review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(SEP), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00367 Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Chanani, S. (2011). Why it is too early to lose control in accounts of item-specific proportion congruency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(3), 844–859. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019957 Clayson, P.E. & Larson, M.J. (2013). Conflict adaptation psychometrics. Psychophysiology, 50: 1209-1219. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12138 Crump, M. J. C., Gong, Z., & Milliken, B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13(2), 316–321. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193850 Crump, M. J. C., & Milliken, B. (2009). The flexibility of context-specific control: Evidence for context-driven generalization of item-specific control settings. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1523–1532. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902752096 Crump, M. J. C., Vaquero, J. M. M., & Milliken, B. (2008). Context-specific learning and control: The roles of awareness, task relevance, and relative salience. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2007.01.004 Fischer, R., Gottschalk, C., & Dreisbach, G. (2014). Context-sensitive adjustment of cognitive control in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 40(2), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034310 Henik, A., & Tzelgov, J. (1982). Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks. Memory & Cognition, 10(4), 389–395. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202431 King, J. A., Korb, F. M., & Egner, T. (2012). Priming of control: Implicit contextual cuing of top-down attentional set. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(24), 8192–8200. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0934-12.2012 Lindsay, S. D., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. In Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance (Vol. 20, Issue 2, pp. 219–234). Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7(3), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197535