Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
2 result(s) for "cross-task conflict adaptation"
Sort by:
Further Argumentation for Conflict Adaptation Not Being Domain General: Response to Novick et al. (2025)
We agree with the commentary that discrepant results across cross-task conflict adaptation studies are likely explained by methodological differences. Considering additional studies and paradigms, we argue that, collectively, the weight of the evidence suggests conflict adaptation is domain-specific; the exception being the visual world paradigm. Further argumentation is provided for why the visual world paradigm may in fact be showing domain-specific conflict adaptation within visual attentional control. The additional methodological concerns raised in the commentary about our study either do not appear consistently across all of our experiments or we provide further data or argumentation to demonstrate they are in fact not a concern. Our original article did not claim that cognitive control does not apply in language processing, but that a domain-specific account of cognitive control may be feasible and should be explored in future work.
Transferable Modulation of Cognitive Control: The Cross-Task Role of Conflict Adaptation in Thematic Roles Assignment in Chinese
Conflict adaptation reflects the dynamic modulation of information processing by the cognitive control system following conflict detection. A central question in language processing research concerns whether control elicited by non-linguistic tasks generalizes across tasks to influence higher-order processes such as sentence comprehension. The present study employed color-word Stroop tasks of varying complexity and, in conjunction with eye-tracking technology, examined their cross-task regulatory effects of conflict adaptation on thematic role assignment in Chinese. Across two experiments, participants read sentences containing either congruent or conflicting thematic roles following Stroop trials with congruent or incongruent stimuli. The temporal dynamics of syntactic processing were captured via eye movement measures. Results indicated that both conflict tasks triggered cross-task conflict adaptation, as evidenced by accelerated syntactic processing and reduced regression behaviors when thematically incongruent sentences followed conflict trials. Notably, the more complex color-word Stroop task imposed greater demands on cognitive control resources and elicited earlier cognitive adaptation effects during comprehension. Theoretically, these findings extend conflict monitoring theory to the domain of language processing, demonstrating that cognitive control mechanisms contribute to real-time syntactic parsing. Methodologically, the use of eye-tracking to examine thematic role assignment provides fine-grained empirical evidence for the interaction between domain-general control and language-specific processing.