Limits on the generalizability of context-driven control

References

• Blais, C., Robidoux, S., Risko, E. F., & Besner, D. (2007). Item-specific adaptation and the conflict-monitoring hypothesis: A computational model. Psychological Review, 114, 1076–1086. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.1076
   Google Scholar
• Bugg, J. M. (2012). Dissociating levels of cognitive control. Current directions in Psychological Science, 21, 302–309. doi: 10.1177/0963721412453586
   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, 3, 1–16. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00367
   Google Scholar
• Bugg, J. M., & Hutchison, K. A. (2013). Converging evidence for control of color-word Stroop interference at the item level. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 433–449.
   Google Scholar
• Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Toth, J. P. (2008). Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition, 36, 1484–1494. doi: 10.3758/MC.36.8.1484
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account for the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332–361. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.332
   Google Scholar
• Crump, M. J. C. (2016). Learning to selectively attend from context-specific attentional histories: A demonstration and some constraints. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 59–77.
   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., & Logan, G. D. (2010). Contextual control over task-set retrieval. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 2047–2053. doi: 10.3758/BF03196681
   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. 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
• Egner, T. (2014). Creatures of habit (and control): A multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of the congruency effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 29–39. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01247
   Google Scholar
• Heinemann, A., Kunde, W., & Kiesel, A. (2009). Context-specific prime-congruency effects: On the role of conscious stimulus representations for cognitive control. Consciousness and Cognition, 18, 966–976. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2009.08.009
   Google Scholar
• Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11–26. doi: 10.1080/17470215208416600
   Google Scholar
• Hutcheon, T. G., & Spieler, D. H. (2014). Contextual influences on the sequential congruency effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 155–162. doi: 10.3758/s13423-013-0473-5
   Google Scholar
• Hutchison, K. A. (2011). The interactive effects of list-wide control, item-based control, and working memory capacity on Stroop performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 37, 851–860.
   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. doi: 10.3758/BF03196526
   Google Scholar
• Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• King, J. A., Donkin, C., Korb, F. M., & Egner, T. (2012). Model-based analysis of context-specific control. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 156–168. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00358
   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
• Leboe, J. P., Wong, J., Crump, M., & Stobbe, K. (2008). Probe-specific proportion task repetition effects on switching costs. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 935–945. doi: 10.3758/PP.70.6.935
   Google Scholar
• Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automation. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492
   Google Scholar
• Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects o increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 166–174. doi: 10.3758/BF03197535
   Google Scholar
• MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163
   Google Scholar
• Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.85.3.207
   Google Scholar
• Melara, R. D., & Algom, D. (2003). Driven by information: A tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychological Review, 110, 422–471. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.422
   Google Scholar
• Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167
   Google Scholar
• Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J. (1997). Exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychological Review, 104, 266–300. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.266
   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. (2014). Contingencies and attentional capture: The importance of matching stimulus informativeness in the item-specific proportion congruent task. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 157–159.
   Google Scholar
• Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115, 518–525. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.518
   Google Scholar
• Vietze, I., & Wendt, M. (2009). Context specificity of conflict frequency-dependent control. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1391–1400. doi: 10.1080/17470210802426908
   Google Scholar
• Weidler, B. J., & Bugg, J. M. (2016). Transfer of location-specific control to untrained locations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/17470218.2015.1111396
   Google Scholar