Associative priming and conflict differentially affect two processes underlying cognitive control: Evidence from reaching behavior

Erb, McBride, Marcovitch · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · 2019 · cognitive-psychology · 10.3758/s13423-019-01576-y · record Erb2019-associative-priming-and-conflict-differentia
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. The pdftext extraction is heavily scrambled in places (Table 1 is reversed character-by-character, and the sentence reporting that the curvature results failed to support the conflict-adaptation account is broken across clauses), so quotes were taken only from clean contiguous passages; the paper's explicit rejection of the conflict-adaptation account of the CSE could not be quoted verbatim and is therefore not encoded as a claim_relation. Curly-quote/ligature artefacts of the extraction ('B...^' for quotation marks, 'stimulusand', 'responselevel') were copied unaltered. Replication status is untested: the novel confound-minimized comparison is new here, though the paper notes its initiation-time pattern matches earlier studies from the same lab. 2026-08-15, 2026-08-19 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
standard deviation 3 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 5 concept tags on this paper, all 5 are grounded in a quoted sentence. All carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

associative priming conflict adaptation CSE initiation times reach curvatures Coactivation of competing responses on incongruent trials raises the response threshold, lengthening motoric stopping and thus slowing initiation, with the raised threshold carrying over into the next trial Overlap between the current and previous trial's stimulus-response features either helps or hinders the formation of the appropriate stimulus-response pair, and that facilitation or interference shows up as more or less reach curvature congruency sequence effect (CSE) curvature confound-minimized trials initiation time movement time current congruency previous congruency associative-priming confounds reach curvature error rate visual acuity ANOVA repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) F-test p-value effect size (partial eta squared) standard deviation mean standard error Error bars display standard errors behavioural-experiment

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01576-y. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 3 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 3 · concepts 5 · content_tags 30 · controls 2 · limitations 2 · mechanisms 2 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 4

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 3 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	congruency sequence effect in the Stroop task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Coactivation of competing responses on incongruent trials raises the response threshold, lengthening motoric stopping and thus slowing initiation, with the raised threshold carrying over into the next trial	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Overlap between the current and previous trial's stimulus-response features either helps or hinders the formation of the appropriate stimulus-response pair, and that facilitation or interference shows up as more or less reach curvature	`mechanisms[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The study used only a reach-tracking task, so it cannot say whether button-press response times would show the same pattern. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The task did not separate stimulus-level from response-level conflict and did not control contingency-learning effects; the authors call for tasks that do. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
controls	every individual trial was VISUALLY INSPECTED and those where the automatic threshold missed part of the movement were identified Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the movement measures are corrupted by an automatic threshold that mis-segments the reaching trajectory · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
controls	a practice block of 24 Stroop trials preceded the experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that early Stroop performance reflects unfamiliarity rather than conflict · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concepts	associative priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: associative priming	`concepts[0]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	conflict adaptation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conflict adaptation	`concepts[1]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	CSE Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: CSE	`concepts[2]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	initiation times Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: initiation times	`concepts[3]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	reach curvatures Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reach curvatures	`concepts[4]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	PRIMING AS THE CONFOUND RATHER THAN THE PHENOMENON, WHICH THIS CORPUS HAS ALMOST NONE OF: `Quotation withheld.` Two accounts of one effect, and the priming account needs no control process at all - if the current trial repeats the previous trial's stimulus and response, the pairing was already formed. So a CSE is not evidence for cognitive control until the overlap is removed. Every other record I have tagged treats priming as the object of study; here it is the alternative explanation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	AND THE AUTHORS SAY PLAINLY THAT THE EARLIER WORK - INCLUDING THEIR OWN - LEAVES THE QUESTION OPEN: `Quotation withheld.` The preceding sentence - that earlier tasks did not control for those confounds - is fused in the staged text and cannot be quoted. This is a whole literature's results placed in doubt by the people who produced some of them, and it is what motivates the design rather than a limitation conceded at the end Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	THE DISSOCIATION IS PRODUCED BY A CONTROL RATHER THAN BY A MANIPULATION, WHICH IS THE RARER AND STRONGER FORM: initiation times showed the effect `on BOTH confound-minimized and confound-laden trials`; reach curvatures showed it `on confound-laden but not on confound-minimized trials`. Nothing was added to the design - something was taken away, and one of the two measures lost its effect with it. A dissociation obtained by subtraction cannot be explained by whatever the added factor also did, which is the usual objection to the added-manipulation kind Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	AND THE STROOP TASK APPEARS HERE AS APPARATUS, NOT AS SUBJECT: a three-response, reach-tracking version, 84 years after Stroop 1935, used to ask about trial-to-trial control rather than about interference. The corpus now holds the founding paper and a paper that treats it as equipment - and the pair is worth more than either, because it shows what happens to a paradigm when it stops being a finding and becomes a method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	0.85	the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → Erb & Marcovitch (2018a, 2018b); Erb et al. (2016, 2018b) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	replicates → Schmidt & De Houwer (2011); Weissman, Jiang, & Egner (2014) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → Scherbaum, Dshemuchadse, Fischer, and Goschke (2010, Exp. 2) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHETHER STIMULUS REPETITIONS ARE EXCLUDED. 'Scherbaum, Dshemuchadse, Fischer, and Goschke (2010, Exp. 2) OBSERVED A SIGNIFICANT CSE in participants' hand movements in a mouse-tracking version of the Simon task, Quotation withheld, whereas th[is study]...' The disagreement is between two analyses of the same confound, not between two claims about the effect.	`claim_relations[2]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	associative priming —causes→ CSE Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.7 · note: ONE OF TWO RIVAL ACCOUNTS, AND 'has been attributed to' IS THE HEDGE, INSIDE THE QUOTE. This edge is not the paper's finding - it is the position the paper tests. Weight 0.7 because the sentence reports an attribution in the literature rather than a result here, and because this paper's own data cut both ways: the curvature CSE disappears when the priming confound is removed (so priming was carrying it) while the initiation-time CSE does not (so priming was not). A corpus that recorded only the surviving effect would lose the reason anyone doubted it. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the CSE 'HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED' to associative priming among other factors, in a debate; causes is hedged. also in: associative priming · CSE	`concept_edges[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	conflict adaptation —causes→ CSE Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.7 · note: THE OTHER RIVAL, on the same sentence and at the same weight, deliberately. The two edges are symmetrical because the quote is symmetrical - it lists both without choosing. Recording one and not the other would make the corpus take a side the sentence does not take, and the paper's contribution is precisely that it separates them empirically rather than arguing for one. The separation lives in the third sense. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the CSE 'HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED' to conflict adaptation among other factors, in a debate; causes is hedged. also in: conflict adaptation · CSE	`concept_edges[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concept_edges	associative priming —contrasted-with→ conflict adaptation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: THIS IS THE EDGE THE PAPER IS ABOUT, and it is the only one of the three that carries the paper's own claim rather than the literature's. The two accounts predict the same effect and differ in whether a control process is needed at all - one is top-down regulation, the other is feature repetition requiring nothing. Weight 0.9: the contrast is explicit in the quote and the whole design exists to resolve it. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but associative priming and conflict adaptation are two of the factors the CSE has been attributed to; contrasted-with is loose. also in: associative priming · conflict adaptation	`concept_edges[2]`	0.95	the tagger's words
content_tags	ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	F-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: F-test	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	effect size (partial eta squared) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: effect size (partial eta squared)	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	standard deviation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard deviation	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	standard error Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard error	`content_tags.statistics[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Initiation times showed the same pattern of effects (cC < iC < cI < iI) regardless of associative-priming effects. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	A curvature CSE appeared on set-repeat trials, which carried substantial associative priming, but not on confound-minimized trials. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The size of the curvature CSE was itself reliably larger on set repeat than on confound-minimized trials. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	On confound-minimized trials reach curvature responded only to current congruency, with no carry-over from the previous trial and no interaction. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Error rates on confound-minimized trials tracked current congruency alone, mirroring the curvature pattern. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	congruency sequence effect (CSE) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: congruency sequence effect (CSE)	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	curvature Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: curvature	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	confound-minimized trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: confound-minimized trials	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	initiation time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: initiation time	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	movement time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: movement time	`content_tags.definitions[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	current congruency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: current congruency	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	previous congruency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: previous congruency	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	associative-priming confounds Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: associative-priming confounds	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	initiation time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: initiation time	`content_tags.variables[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	reach curvature Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reach curvature	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	error rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: error rate	`content_tags.variables[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	visual acuity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: visual acuity	`content_tags.variables[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	45 — number of adult participants tested in the reach-tracking Stroop task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	M = 19.7 years, SD = 3.0 — mean and standard deviation of participant age in the final sample Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	F(1, 44) = 4.18, p = .047, ηp 2 = .09 — test of whether the curvature CSE was larger on set repeat than on confound-minimized trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	6% — share of experimental trials discarded (errors plus post-error trials) before analysing the timing and curvature measures Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	3.4% (SD = 3.0%) — average per-participant share of trials whose movement-onset threshold had to be adjusted by hand Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	approximately 160 Hz — sampling rate of the electromagnetic motion-tracking system recording the reach Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[5]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.