Conflict Monitoring and Cognitive Control PDF

Conflict Monitoring and Cognitive Control 25 January 2024 12:56 Main Ideas Notes How do we control Behaviour: Notes Notes Conflict Monitoring Theory (CMT) (Continued) CMT Critiques Cognitive Control & Executive Functions: cognitive control - a fundamental component of Executive Functions. Cognitive...

Conflict Monitoring and Cognitive Control 25 January 2024 12:56 Main Ideas Notes How do we control Behaviour: Notes Notes Conflict Monitoring Theory (CMT) (Continued) CMT Critiques Cognitive Control & Executive Functions: cognitive control - a fundamental component of Executive Functions. Cognitive control is the ability to regulate one's thoughts and actions in alignment with internal goals. This notion is critical in understanding how individuals plan, execute, and monitor their behavior to achieve specific objectives. Definition & Components: Cognitive control is defined as the capacity to "orchestrate thought and action in accordance with internal goals" (Miller & Cohen, 2001). This includes a range of mental processes such as: Inhibition: The ability to deliberately suppress irrelevant or unwanted actions or thoughts. Error Monitoring: The process of detecting and responding to errors or discrepancies in one's actions or the environment. Planning: The ability to formulate, represent, and maintain a sequence of actions to achieve a goal. Multi-tasking: Managing and executing multiple tasks simultaneously or switching between tasks efficiently. Attention Selection: The ability to focus on relevant stimuli while ignoring distractions. Working Memory & Goal Maintenance: Holding and manipulating information in mind over short periods to guide behavior according to the desired goal Cognitive Conflict Cognitive Conflict as a Source of Errors: cognitive conflict - a significant source of errors. Cognitive conflict arises when there's interference between conflicting pieces of evidence or responses, capturing our attention and potentially leading to incorrect decisions or actions. Common Paradigms to Study Cognitive Conflict: Stroop Task: A task where individuals are asked to name the colour of the word presented, which can be congruent (word "red" in red colour) or incongruent (word "red" in blue colour), to measure the ability to suppress the automatic reading response. Simon Task: Assesses the ability to suppress the urge to make a movement that is spatially congruent with a stimulus when such a response is incorrect. Eriksen Flanker Task: Requires participants to respond to a central stimulus while ignoring flanking stimuli that can be congruent or incongruent, measuring the ability to suppress the influence of irrelevant stimuli. Go/No-Go Task: Measures the ability to withhold a response in the presence of certain stimuli (No-Go), contrasting with the execution of a response in the presence of other stimuli (Go). Cognitive Conflict and Error Rates/Response Times: cognitive conflict, as examined through the paradigms mentioned previously, is a robust cause for errors. measuring error rates or response times as methods to quantify the impact of cognitive conflict on performance. Conflict Adaptation: referring to the process by which the cognitive system adjusts to minimize the impact of conflict over time. This is often studied in the context of task-switching or after encountering incongruent trials in tasks like the Stroop or Flanker tasks. Gratton, Coles, & Donchin (1992) are cited for their contributions to understanding this phenomenon. Conflict Monitoring Theory (CMT) Conflict Monitoring Theory (CMT): Conflict Monitoring Theory by Yeung (2013) and Botvinick et al. (2004). The theory proposes that cognitive conflict is monitored and resolved through a series of interconnected neural processes. CMT and Neural Representations: Congruent Trial: Describes how in a congruent trial (e.g., > > >), neurons representing the congruent response (>) fire and send information to the motor cortex to execute the correct response. Incongruent Trial: Describes how in an incongruent trial (e.g., > < >), neurons representing both the congruent (>) and incongruent (