Image credit: Brain and arrow icons created by Freepik (www.freepik.com; CC BY 4.0).
You are reading a book in your local coffeeshop, when your focus gets broken by the couple at the next table, passionately discussing mortgage rates. To minimise this interruption your brain engages in ‘cognitive control’, resolving conflicts between competing stimuli to prioritise one over another.
Having finally regained your focus, another distraction emerges, this time of a different nature. Does your brain use the same mental mechanisms as before, and therefore a common brain circuit? Or does each kind of stimulus require a specific process?
Tasks that involve successively presenting different distractors can help explore these questions by testing for a process known as generalization: if the same mental mechanism underpins the resolution of all conflicts, distractors should become easier to ignore after the first trial.
Based on this paradigm, Yang et al. recorded brain activity during a modified version of a spatial Stroop-Simon task. Participants were asked to press a left or right button based on whether an arrow was pointing up or down, with both the vertical and horizontal position of the symbol potentially causing interference. For instance, accurate decision-making may be impaired when an arrow ‘down’ the bottom of the screen is pointing up (Stroop effect); or when participants must press the left button for an arrow shown on their right (Simon effect). Overall, the arrows could appear in 10 possible locations, giving rise to five types of conflicts with a unique blend of Stroop and Simon effects, with different levels of similarity.
The results showed that the degree to which conflicts could generalize to each other depended on their similarity: the more similar the conflicts, the easier it was to resolve one after having faced another. This is contrary to previous views suggesting that different conflict types either entirely generalized or could not generalize at all.
In addition, the analyses revealed that the neural networks involved in resolving each conflict type were organised in a continuous manner within a region called the prefrontal cortex. This pattern resembles how spatial information is arranged in the brain, prompting Yang et al. to suggest that cognitive control also falls under a set of principles known as cognitive space representations.
Overall, the methodology employed in this work could prove useful to researchers from other fields who also investigate whether various stimuli are processed via the same or different neural networks.
