Visual dominance of the congruency sequence effect in a cross-modal context.

Xiaoyu Tang, Xi Zhang, Tingting Wang, Hongtao Yu, Aijun Wang, Ming Zhang
Author Information
  1. Xiaoyu Tang: School of Psychology, Liaoning Collaborative Innovation Center of Children and Adolescents Healthy Personality Assessment and Cultivation, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian, China.
  2. Xi Zhang: School of Psychology, Liaoning Collaborative Innovation Center of Children and Adolescents Healthy Personality Assessment and Cultivation, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian, China.
  3. Tingting Wang: Department of Psychology, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
  4. Hongtao Yu: School of Psychology, Liaoning Collaborative Innovation Center of Children and Adolescents Healthy Personality Assessment and Cultivation, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian, China.
  5. Aijun Wang: Department of Psychology, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.
  6. Ming Zhang: Department of Psychology, Soochow University, Suzhou, China.

Abstract

The congruency sequence effect (CSE) refers to the reduction in the congruency effect in the current trial after an incongruent trial compared with a congruent trial. Although previous studies widely suggested that CSE was observed only in the modality repeat condition, few studies have reported that CSE could also appear in the modality switch condition. However, it remains unclear whether these conflicting findings were caused by partial repetition effects under modality transition conditions. To address this issue, Experiment 1 controlled for partial repetition effects by ensuring that the modality relationships in both the repetition and switch conditions were either fully congruent or incongruent. The results revealed significant CSE only under the modality repetition condition. In particular, a larger CSE was observed in visual-auditory (VA) repetition than in auditory-visual (AV) repetition, indicating that modality asymmetry might affect the CSE by inducing the priming effect. Thus, Experiment 2 concurrently presented visual and auditory stimuli to eliminate priming effects and further validated CSE differences between auditory and visual modalities. The results revealed that the CSE was significantly greater under the VA condition than under the AV condition and confirmed that the visual modality played a dominant role in the CSE, as visual information is prioritized in processing and ultimately reduces the congruency effect in the next trial. Overall, the present study provides evidence for the specificity of CSE under modality repetition conditions by excluding partial repetition effects and further underscores the critical role of visual dominance in cross-modal CSE.

Keywords

References

  1. Mem Cognit. 2022 Oct;50(7):1578-1589 [PMID: 35257300]
  2. Trends Cogn Sci. 2019 Sep;23(9):769-783 [PMID: 31331794]
  3. J Neurosci. 2013 Apr 24;33(17):7109-21 [PMID: 23616521]
  4. Exp Brain Res. 2009 Mar;193(4):603-14 [PMID: 19066869]
  5. Neuroimage. 2019 Mar;188:411-418 [PMID: 30562575]
  6. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2022 Feb;151(2):493-505 [PMID: 34351193]
  7. J Neurosci. 2022 Nov 9;42(45):8556-8568 [PMID: 36150889]
  8. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2018 Oct;190:267-276 [PMID: 30170247]
  9. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2020 May;46(5):945-967 [PMID: 31580121]
  10. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2012 Jul;74(5):867-78 [PMID: 22415447]
  11. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2023 Jul;49(7):1033-1050 [PMID: 35951436]
  12. Brain Res. 2010 Oct 1;1354:113-22 [PMID: 20674555]
  13. Trends Cogn Sci. 2020 Jun;24(6):481-495 [PMID: 32317142]
  14. J Neurosci. 2008 Dec 17;28(51):13786-92 [PMID: 19091969]
  15. Cereb Cortex. 2023 Nov 4;33(22):11080-11091 [PMID: 37814353]
  16. Hum Brain Mapp. 2023 Jul;44(10):4152-4164 [PMID: 37195056]
  17. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2023 Sep 28;:17470218231200442 [PMID: 37650459]
  18. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011 Dec;37(6):1898-914 [PMID: 21767054]
  19. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2021 Oct;51:101006 [PMID: 34419765]
  20. Neuroscience. 2020 Jun 1;436:122-135 [PMID: 32325100]
  21. J Neurosci. 2015 Jun 17;35(24):9064-77 [PMID: 26085631]
  22. Psychol Res. 2021 Jul;85(5):2047-2068 [PMID: 32592067]
  23. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2020 Nov;149(11):2020-2045 [PMID: 32191081]
  24. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2017 May;43(5):757-780 [PMID: 27854444]
  25. Front Psychol. 2014 Oct 08;5:1134 [PMID: 25339930]
  26. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2024 Aug;50(8):819-841 [PMID: 38900528]
  27. Cogn Psychol. 2023 Feb;140:101528 [PMID: 36584549]
  28. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2022 Jun;75(6):1171-1185 [PMID: 34507511]
  29. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2023 Sep;49(9):1221-1235 [PMID: 37410404]
  30. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Apr;13(2):328-33 [PMID: 16893003]
  31. Can J Exp Psychol. 2024 Dec;78(4):245-255 [PMID: 38602812]
  32. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2020 Aug;46(8):798-812 [PMID: 32324028]
  33. Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Oct;24(5):849-78; discussion 878-937 [PMID: 12239891]
  34. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2023 Aug;49(8):1247-1263 [PMID: 36066855]
  35. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2017 Mar;174:9-16 [PMID: 28126490]
  36. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2022 Oct;48(10):1099-1115 [PMID: 35980705]
  37. Mem Cognit. 2006 Sep;34(6):1260-72 [PMID: 17225507]
  38. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2021 Oct;47(10):1705-1719 [PMID: 34672662]
  39. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2014 Jun;149:60-8 [PMID: 24704781]
  40. Psychol Res. 2020 Mar;84(2):292-301 [PMID: 30083838]
  41. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021 Feb;83(2):790-799 [PMID: 33179215]
  42. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2020 Mar;46(3):241-251 [PMID: 32077740]
  43. Neuroimage. 2022 Jul 15;255:119182 [PMID: 35395403]
  44. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021 Feb;83(2):810-836 [PMID: 33269440]
  45. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2019 Sep;45(9):1265-1270 [PMID: 31380673]
  46. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2016 Apr;42(4):566-83 [PMID: 26389630]
  47. PLoS One. 2013 Apr 29;8(4):e62802 [PMID: 23638149]
  48. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 06;9(3):e90281 [PMID: 24603900]
  49. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Dec;8(12):539-46 [PMID: 15556023]
  50. Psychol Res. 2017 Mar;81(2):490-507 [PMID: 26908247]
  51. J Neurosci. 2011 Mar 9;31(10):3853-61 [PMID: 21389240]
  52. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2019 Jan;192:31-41 [PMID: 30408614]
  53. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2017 Apr;43(4):807-818 [PMID: 28345947]
  54. Psychophysiology. 2021 May;58(5):e13784 [PMID: 33559273]
  55. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2023 Aug;49(8):1111-1122 [PMID: 37326527]
  56. Neuroimage. 2023 Jun;273:120084 [PMID: 37011717]
  57. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1992 Dec;121(4):480-506 [PMID: 1431740]
  58. Cortex. 2018 Sep;106:47-64 [PMID: 29864595]
  59. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2006 Nov;135(4):623-40 [PMID: 17087577]
  60. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2024 Jun;50(6):902-919 [PMID: 37883054]
  61. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008 Dec;15(6):1117-21 [PMID: 19001577]
  62. Spat Vis. 1997;10(4):433-6 [PMID: 9176952]
  63. Neuroimage. 2023 May 1;271:120022 [PMID: 36918137]
  64. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2007 Dec;7(4):356-66 [PMID: 18189009]
  65. J Neurosci. 2015 Jun 3;35(22):8546-57 [PMID: 26041921]
  66. Psychophysiology. 2022 Nov;59(11):e14092 [PMID: 35569101]
  67. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019 Apr;81(3):809-822 [PMID: 30628034]
  68. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Oct;23(5):1466-1473 [PMID: 26813694]
  69. Cortex. 2020 Dec;133:266-276 [PMID: 33157346]
  70. Mem Cognit. 2024 Jan;52(1):91-114 [PMID: 37548866]
  71. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2024 May 17;:17470218241249471 [PMID: 38627225]
  72. Psychol Res. 2023 Oct;87(7):2228-2237 [PMID: 36790482]
  73. Cereb Cortex. 2017 May 1;27(5):2831-2840 [PMID: 27166168]
  74. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2024 Apr 22;: [PMID: 38647457]
  75. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Feb 15;97(4):1944-8 [PMID: 10677559]
  76. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2020 May;82(4):1632-1643 [PMID: 31820281]
  77. Front Psychol. 2019 Feb 11;10:40 [PMID: 30804824]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0CSEmodalityrepetitioneffectvisualcongruencyconditiontrialeffectssequencepartialconditionsdominancecross-modalincongruentcongruentstudiesobservedswitchExperimentresultsrevealedVAAVprimingauditoryrolerefersreductioncurrentcomparedAlthoughpreviouswidelysuggestedrepeatreportedalsoappearHoweverremainsunclearwhetherconflictingfindingscausedtransitionaddressissue1controlledensuringrelationshipseitherfullysignificantparticularlargervisual-auditoryauditory-visualindicatingasymmetrymightaffectinducingThus2concurrentlypresentedstimulieliminatevalidateddifferencesmodalitiessignificantlygreaterconfirmedplayeddominantinformationprioritizedprocessingultimatelyreducesnextOverallpresentstudyprovidesevidencespecificityexcludingunderscorescriticalVisualcontextcognitivecontrolconflictadaptation

Similar Articles

Cited By