Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Apr;85(3):949-959.
doi: 10.3758/s13414-022-02563-7. Epub 2022 Oct 31.

The influence of reward in the Simon task: Differences and similarities to the Stroop and Eriksen flanker tasks

Victor Mittelstädt  1 , Rolf Ulrich  2 , Julia König  2 , Katharina Hofbauer  2 , Ian Grant Mackenzie  2
Affiliations

The influence of reward in the Simon task: Differences and similarities to the Stroop and Eriksen flanker tasks

Victor Mittelstädt et al. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2023 Apr.

Abstract

Previous studies have suggested that performance-contingent reward can modulate cognitive control by biasing irrelevant location-response associations in the Simon task. However, the influence of reward in the case of irrelevant words (Stroop task) or irrelevant flankers (Eriksen Flanker task) remains unclear. Across two preregistered experiments, the present study investigated the influence of reward on conflict processing with different types of distractors. Conflict effects on mean reaction time (RT) were reduced in the Simon task (Experiments 1 and 2) when incongruent versus congruent trials were rewarded, and this modulating effect of reward on conflict processing was also observed in the Eriksen flanker task (Experiment 2), but not in the Stroop task (Experiment 1). We propose that cognitive control adjustments to distractor-specific reward contingencies can be generalized across distractor types producing both perceptual-related (Flanker task) and motor-related (Simon task) conflict, but, if any, to a limited degree when distractors produce additional higher-level task conflict (Stroop task). In addition, distributional RT analyses (delta plots) revealed that rewarded distractor-response associations modulate cognitive control not only via biasing the strength (Simon and Eriksen tasks) but also the time-course of suppressing distractor processing (Eriksen task). Overall, the present study dissociated distractor-general and distractor-specific effects of reward on cognitive control.

Keywords: Cognitive control; Conflict task; Delta plots; Effect; Eriksen flanker effect; Reward; Simon effect; Stroop.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Sketch of the stimulus and feedback display (not to scale) Experiment 1 (Simon, Stroop) and Experiment 2 (Simon, Eriksen). See text for more details
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A. Mean reaction time (RT) as a function of reward (RC group, RI group) and congruency (congruent, incongruent) separately for the Simon and Stroop tasks in Experiment 1. B. Delta plots showing incongruent minus congruent differences in mean RT within each of 9 RT percentiles, plotted against the percentiles average RTs, separately for each task condition and participant. C. Mean percentage error (PE) as a function of reward group and congruency separately for the Simon and Stroop tasks. D. Delta plots showing incongruent minus congruent differences in mean PE within each of 5 RT quantiles, plotted against the quantile mean RTs, separately for each task condition and participant. The error bars in A and C indicate 1 SE (standard error) of the corresponding means
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
A. Mean reaction time (RT) as a function of reward (RC group, RI group) and congruency (congruent, incongruent) separately for the Simon and Eriksen flanker tasks in Experiment 2. B. Delta plots showing incongruent minus congruent differences in mean RT within each of 9 RT percentiles, plotted against the percentiles average RTs, separately for each task condition and participant. C. Mean percentage error (PE) as a function of reward group and congruency separately for the Simon and Eriksen tasks. D. Delta plots showing incongruent minus congruent differences in mean PE within each of 5 RT quantiles, plotted against the quantile mean RTs, separately for each task condition and participant. The error bars in A and C indicate 1 SE (standard error) of the corresponding means
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Braem S, Egner T. Getting a grip on cognitive flexibility. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2018;27(6):470–476. doi: 10.1177/0963721418787475. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Braver TS. The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2012;16(2):106–113. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bundt C, Abrahamse EL, Braem S, Brass M, Notebaert W. Reward anticipation modulates primary motor cortex excitability during task preparation. NeuroImage. 2016;142:483–488. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.07.013. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bundt C, Boehler CN, Verbruggen F, Brass M, Notebaert W. Reward does not modulate corticospinal excitability in anticipation of a stroop trial. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2021;53(4):1019–1028. doi: 10.1111/ejn.15052. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Burle B, Spieser L, Servant M, Hasbroucq T. Distributional reaction time properties in the Eriksen task: Marked differences or hidden similarities with the Simon task? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 2013;21(4):1003–1010. doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0561-6. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources