Transfer of location-specific control to untrained locations

REFERENCES

• Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16, 437–443. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010
   Google Scholar
• Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: Dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 76–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bugg, J. M. (2014). Evidence for the sparing of reactive cognitive control with age. Psychology and Aging, 29, 115–127. doi:10.1037/a0035270
   Google Scholar
• 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: Cognition, 3, 1–16. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00367
   Google Scholar
• 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, 844–859. doi:10.1037/a0019957
   Google Scholar
• Cañadas, E., Rodríguez-Bailón, R., Milliken, B. & Lupiáñez, J. (2013). Social categories as a context for the allocation of attentional control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 934–943. doi:10.1037/a0029794
   Google Scholar
• Corballis, P. M. & Gratton, G. (2003). Independent control of processing strategies for different locations in the visual field. Biological Psychology, 64, 191–209. doi:10.1016/S0301-0511(03)00109-1
   Google Scholar
• Crump, M. J. C., Gong, Z., & Milliken, B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 316–321. doi:10.3758/BF03193850
   Google Scholar
• Crump, M. J. C. & Milliken, B. (2009). The flexibility of context-specific control: Evidence for context-driven generalization of item-specific control settings. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1523–1532. doi:10.1080/17470210902752096
   Google Scholar
• Crump, M. J. C., Vaquero, J. M., & Milliken, B. (2008). Context-specific learning and control: The roles of awareness, task relevance, and relative salience. Consciousness and Cognition, 17, 22–36. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2007.01.004
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, R., Gottschalk, C., & Dreisbach, G. (2014). Context-sensitive adjustment of cognitive control in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 40, 399–416. doi:10.1037/a0034310
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, R. A., & Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Encoding shape and spatial relations: The role of receptive field size in coordinating complementary representations. Cognitive Science, 18, 361–386. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1803_1
   Google Scholar
• Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 638–644.
   Google Scholar
• Jager, G., & Postma, A. (2003). On the hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate spatial relations: a review of the current evidence. Neuropsychologia, 41, 504–515. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00086-6
   Google Scholar
• King, J. A., Korb, F. M., & Egner, T. (2012). Priming of control: Implicit contextual cuing of top-down attentional set. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 8192–8200. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0934-12.2012
   Google Scholar
• Kosslyn, S. M. (1987). Seeing and imagining in the cerebral hemispheres: A computational approach. Psychological Review, 94, 148–175. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.2.148
   Google Scholar
• Kruschke, J. K. (1992). ALCOVE: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22–44. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.22
   Google Scholar
• Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffman, J. (2003). Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition. Cognition, 88, 223–242. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00023-4
   Google Scholar
• Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492
   Google Scholar
• Michimata, C., Saneyoshi, A., Okubo, M., & Laeng, B. (2011). Effects of the global and local attention on the processing of categorical and coordinate spatial relations. Brain and Cognition, 77, 292–297. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2011.07.008
   Google Scholar
• Reuss, H., Desender, K., Kiesel, A., & Kunde, W. (2014). Unconscious conflicts in unconscious contexts: The role of awareness and timing in flexible conflict adaptation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1701–1718. doi:10.1037/a0036437
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, J. R. (2013a). Questioning conflict adaptation: Proportion congruent and Gratton effects reconsidered. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 615–630. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0373-0
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, J. R. (2013b). Temporal learning and list-level proportion congruency: Conflict adaptation or learning when to respond? PloS One, 8, 1–12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082320
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, J. R. & Besner, D. (2008). The stroop effect: Why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 34, 514–523.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, J. R., Lemercier, C., & De Houwer, J. (2014). Context-specific temporal learning with non-conflict stimuli: Proof-of-principle for a learning account of context-specific proportion congruent effect. Frontiers in Psychology: Cognition, 5, 1–10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01241
   Google Scholar
• Vietze, I., & Wendt, M. (2009). Context specificity of conflict frequency-dependent control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1391–1400. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.514 10.1080/17470210802426908
   Google Scholar
• Wendt, M., Kluwe, R. H., & Vietze, I. (2008). Location-specific versus hemisphere-specific adaptation of processing selectivity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 135–140. doi:10.3758/PBR.15.1.135
   Google Scholar