DİKKAT, BİLİŞSEL KONTROL VE UYUMLULUK ORANI ETKİLERİ

Öz

Çok eski yıllardan beri düşünürlerin ilgisini çeken dikkat kavramı, psikolojinin modern bir bilim alanı olarak ortaya çıkması ile birlikte deneysel yöntemlerle araştırılmaya başlanmıştır. İlk dikkat kuramları dikkatin temel özelliklerinden seçici olma ve sınırlı kapasiteye sahip olma konularına odaklanmıştır. Sonraki yıllarda bilgi teknolojilerinin de gelişimi ile birlikte insan zihninin tıpkı bilgisayarlar gibi bir bilgi işleme mekanizmasına sahip olduğu görüşü benimsemiş ve bu mekanizmada sisteme giren bilgilerin akışını, dolayısıyla dikkati, kontrol eden bir sisteme ihtiyaç duyulmuştur. Bu kontrol sistemi ‘bilişsel kontrol’ olarak adlandırılmış ve bilgi işleme sisteminin en önemli parçalarından biri olarak kabul edilmiştir. Bu derlemenin amacı da kontrol alanında kullanılan davranışsal yöntemleri ve modelleri gözden geçirip bir araya getirerek, alanyazınındaki boşluklara ve kapsayıcı bir kuramın eksikliğine dikkat çekmektir. Bilişsel kontrolü konu alan ilk modeller kontrollü ve otomatik davranışların ayrımına odaklanmış ve bu davranışların kendilerine has özelliklerini ortaya koymuşlardır. Takip eden modellerde ve daha güncel modellerde ise zihinde bulunan denetleyici birimler aracılığı ile kontrolün ne zaman ve nereye uygulanacağı konusuna odaklanılmıştır. Bilişsel kontrolü ölçmek için ise deneysel olarak uygulanan Stroop, flanker vb. çatışma görevleri kullanılmıştır. Bu görevler aracılığı ile bilişsel kontrol mekanizmalarını aydınlatan pek çok etki ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Bu etkilerin en önemlilerinden birisi uyumluluk oranı etkileridir. Uyumluluk oranı etkileri çeşitli şekillerde değişimlenerek yeni deneysel yöntemler geliştirilmiş ve bu yöntemler sayesinde dikkatin proaktif, reaktif ve bağlama bağlı şekilde kontrol edilebildiği ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Bu etkiler ile birlikte kontrol modelleri güncellenmiş ve yeni kavramsal çerçeveler ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Yine de tüm bu etkileri kapsamlı şekilde açıklayabilen bir model henüz ortaya konmamış olup, alanyazınında halen çözülmesi gereken çeşitli problemler bulunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• dikkat
• bilişsel kontrol
• dikkatin kontrolü
• uyumluluk oranı etkileri
• hesaplamalı kontrol modelleri

ATTENTION, COGNITIVE CONTROL, AND PROPORTION CONGRUENCY EFFECTS

Öz

The notion of attention has captivated philosophers since ancient times. This notion began to be investigated through experimental methods with the emergence of psychology as a modern science. The initial attention theories were related to the main features of attention: selectivity and limited capacity. In the following years, with the development of information technologies, the common view was that the human mind was like the information-processing mechanism of computers. In this human information processing system, there was a need for control of attention, in other words, control for the information flow entering the mechanism. This control mechanism was called ‘cognitive control’ and became one of the most important parts of the human information processing system. The purpose of this review is to examine behavioral methods, and the control models in the field, and to draw attention to the gaps in the literature and the lack of an overarching theory. Initial cognitive control models focused on the difference between controlled and automatic behaviors, and they outlined the specific features of these behaviors. Subsequent and more recent models investigated when and where to apply control through supervisory monitoring units in the mind. In order to measure cognitive control, conflict tasks such as Stroop, flanker, etc. have been used. By using these tasks, many effects have been revealed that help to understand the underlying mechanisms of cognitive control. One of the most important among these effects is a group of proportion congruency effects. By differentially manipulating proportion congruency effects, it was revealed that attention could be controlled in a proactive, reactive, and context-dependent manner. Earlier control models have been updated and new conceptual frameworks have emerged with these findings. Nevertheless, no existing model can comprehensively account for all the observed effects and there are gaps in the literature that need to be resolved.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• attention
• cognitive control
• control of attention
• proportion congruency effects
• computational control models

Kaynakça

1. Abrahamse, E., Braem, S., Notebaert, W. ve Verguts, T. (2016). Grounding cognitive control in associative learning. Psychological Bulletin, 142(7), 693-728. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000047
2. Amer, T., Campbell, K. L. ve Hasher, L. (2016). Cognitive control as a double-edged sword. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(12), 905 915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.10.002
3. Anderson, B. (2011). There is no such thing as attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 2. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00246
4. Ashcraft, M. H. ve Radvansky, G. (2014). Cognition (5th Ed.). Boston: Pearson
5. Atalay, N. B. ve Misirlisoy, M. (2012). Can contingency learning alone account for item-specific control? Evidence from within- and between-language ISPC effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(6), 1578-1590. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028458
6. Atkinson, R. C. ve Shiffrin R. M. (1968). Human memory: a proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence ve J. T. Spence (Eds.). The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory (p. 89– 195). New York: Academic.
7. Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559.
8. Baddeley, A. D. ve Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.). The psychology of learning and motivation Vol. 8 (p. 47–89). New York: Academic Press.

9. Blais, C., Robidoux, S., Risko, E. F. ve Besner, D. (2007). Item-specific adaptation and the conflict-monitoring hypothesis: A computational model. Psychological Review, 114(4), 1076-1086. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.1076
10. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S. ve Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624-652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624
11. Bozkurt, O., Misirlisoy, M. ve Atalay, N. B. (2023). Simultaneous engagement of top-down and bottom-up control in the stroop task: Exploring the effect of contingency learning. Experimental Psychology, 70(5), 294-306. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000602
12. Bozkurt, O., Misirlisoy, M. ve Atalay, N. B. (2024). The role of spatial uncertainty in the context-specific proportion congruency effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 86(4), 1206-1221. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-024-02865-y
13. Braem, S., Bugg, J. M., Schmidt, J. R., Crump, M. J., Weissman, D. H., Notebaert, W. ve Egner, T. (2019). Measuring adaptive control in conflict tasks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(9), 769-783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.07.002
14. Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 106-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010
15. Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and Communication. New York: Oxford University Press.
16. Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L. ve Toth, J. P. (2008). Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition, 36(8), 1484-1494.
17. Bugg, J. M. (2014). Conflict-triggered top-down control: Default mode, last resort, or no such thing? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 567-587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035032
18. Bugg, J. M. ve Chanani, S. (2011). List-wide control is not entirely elusive: Evidence from picture–word Stroop. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18(5), 930-936. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-011-0112-y
19. Bugg, J. M. ve 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.
20. Bugg, J. M. ve 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(2), 433-449.
21. Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L. ve 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(3), 844-859. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019957
22. Bugg, J. M., McDaniel, M. A., Scullin, M. K. ve Braver, T. S. (2011). Revealing list-level control in the Stroop task by uncovering its benefits and a cost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(5), 1595-1606. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024670
23. Buyya, R., Broberg, J., ve Goscinski, A. M. (Eds.). (2010). Cloud computing: Principles and paradigms. John Wiley & Sons.
24. Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51(13), 1484-1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.012
25. Carrasco, M. (2009). Cross-modal attention enhances perceived contrast. 106(52), 22039-22040. https://doi.org/10.1073pnas.0913322107
26. Cherry, E. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25(5), 975-979.
27. Chiu, Y. C. ve Egner, T. (2019). Cortical and subcortical contributions to context-control learning. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 99, 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.01.019
28. Cohen J. D. (2017). Cognitive control: Core constructs and current considerations. In Egner T. (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of cognitive control (p. 3–28). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
29. Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K. ve McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97(3), 332–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.332
30. Corballis, P. M. ve Gratton, G. (2003). Independent control of processing strategies for different locations in the visual field. Biological Psychology, 64(1-2), 191-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(03)00109-1
31. Crump, M. J. C. ve Milliken, B. (2009). Short article: The flexibility of context-specific control: Evidence for context-driven generalization of item-specific control settings. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(8), 1523-1532. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902752096
32. Crump, M. J. C., Vaquero, J. M. M. ve Milliken, B. (2008). Context-specific learning and control: The roles of awareness, task relevance, and relative salience. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 22-36.
33. De Pisapia, N. ve Braver, T. S. (2006). A model of dual control mechanisms through anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex interactions. Neurocomputing, 69(10-12), 1322-1326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2005.12.100
34. Deutsch, J. A. ve Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological review, 70(1), 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0039515
35. Di Lollo, V. (2018). Attention is a sterile concept; iterative reentry is a fertile substitute. Consciousness and Cognition, 64, 45-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.02.005
36. Dyer, F. N. (1973). The Stroop phenomenon and its use in the stlldy of perceptual, cognitive, and response processes. Memory & Cognition, 1(2), 106-120. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198078
37. Egner, T. (2014). Creatures of habit (and control): A multi-level learning perspective on the modulation of congruency effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01247
38. Egner, T. (Ed.). (2017). The Wiley handbook of cognitive control. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
39. Eriksen, B. A. ve Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143-149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267
40. Freund, M. C., Bugg, J. M. ve Braver, T. S. (2021). A representational similarity analysis of cognitive control during color-word Stroop. Journal of Neuroscience, 41(35), 7388-7402. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2956-20.2021
41. Friedenberg, J., Silverman, G. ve Spivey, M. J. (2021). Cognitive science: an introduction to the study of mind (4. bs.). Sage Publications.
42. Glaser, M. O. ve Glaser, W. R. (1982). Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(6), 875-894.
43. Gratton, G., Cooper, P., Fabiani, M., Carter, C. S. ve Karayanidis, F. (2018). Dynamics of cognitive control: Theoretical bases, paradigms, and a view for the future. Psychophysiology, 55(3), e13016. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13016
44. Hatfield, G. (1998). Attention in early scientific psychology. In R. D. Wright (Ed.), Visual Attention (pp. 3-25). New York: Oxford University Press.
45. Hillyard, S. A., Hink, R. F., Schwent, V. L. ve Picton, T. W. (1973). Electrical signs of selective attention in the human brain. Science, 182(4108), 177-180. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.182.4108.177
46. Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494-500.
47. Hommel, B., Chapman, C. S., Cisek, P., Neyedli, H. F., Song, J.-H. ve Welsh, T. N. (2019). No one knows what attention is. Attention, Perception ve Psychophysics, 81(7), 2288-2303. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01846-w
48. Hutchison, K. A. (2011). The interactive effects of listwide control, item-based control, and working memory capacity on Stroop performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 851-860. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023437
49. Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S. ve Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 638-644. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196526
50. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt
51. Johnston, W. A. ve Heinz, S. P. (1978). Flexibility and capacity demands of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107(4), 420-435. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.107.4.420
52. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and Effort. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
53. King, J. A., Korb, F. M. ve Egner, T. (2012). Priming of control: implicit contextual cuing of top-down attentional set. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(24), 8192-8200. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0934-12.2012
54. King, Joseph A., Donkin, C., Korb, F. M. ve Egner, T. (2012). Model-based analysis of context-specific cognitive control. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1-13.
55. Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 21(3), 451-468.
56. Lavie, N., Hirst, A., de Fockert, J. W. ve Viding, E. (2004). Load Theory of Selective Attention and Cognitive Control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(3), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.339
57. Lehle, C. ve Hübner, R. (2008). On-the-fly adaptation of selectivity in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(4), 814-818. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.4.814
58. Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 12(4), 523-553.
59. Logan, G. D. ve Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7(3), 166-174.
60. Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J. ve Williamson, J. (1984). Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22(2), 135-138.
61. Lowe, D. G. ve Mitterer, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 36(4), 684.
62. Luck, S. J. ve Hillyard, S. A. (1994). Spatial filtering during visual search: evidence from human electrophysiology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(5), 1000-1014. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.5.1000
63. Luo, J., Yang, M. ve Wang, L. (2023). Learned irrelevant stimulus-response associations and proportion congruency effect: A diffusion model account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 49(8), 1218–1246. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001158
64. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163-203.
65. MacLeod, C. M. ve MacDonald, P. A. (2000). Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: Uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(10), 383-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01530-8
66. Matlin, M. W. (2009). Cognition (7th ed). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
67. McClelland, J. L. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: an examination of systems of processes in cascade. Psychological Review, 86(4), 287-330.
68. Melara, R. D. ve Algom, D. (2003). Driven by information: a tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychological Review, 110(3), 422-471. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.422
69. Miller, E. K. ve Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24(1), 167-202.
70. Miller, G. A. (2003). The cognitive revolution: a historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 141-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00029-9
71. Miller, G. A., Galanter, E. ve Pribram, K.H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
72. Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11(1), 56-60.
73. Norman, D. A. (1968). Toward a theory of memory and attention. Psychological Review, 75(6), 522-536. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026699
74. Norman, D. A. ve Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz ve D. Shapiro (Ed.), Consciousness and Self-Regulation (p. 1-18). Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-0629-1_1
75. Pashler, H. E. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge: the MIT Press
76. Posner, M. I. ve Boies, S. J. (1971). Components of attention. Psychological Review, 78(5), 391-408. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031333
77. Posner, M. I. ve Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual review of Neuroscience, 13(1), 25-42.
78. Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R. ve Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(2), 160-174.
79. Posner, M.I. ve Snyder, C.R.R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R.L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (p. 55-85). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
80. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85(2), 59-108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.2.59
81. Ratcliff, R., Smith, P. L., Brown, S. D. ve McKoon, G. (2016). Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(4), 260–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.007
82. Roberts, S. ve Pashler, H. (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing.Psychological Review, 107(2), 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.2.358
83. Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E. ve Williams, R. J. (1986). Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature, 323(6088), 533-536.
84. Schmidt, J. R. (2019). Evidence against conflict monitoring and adaptation: An updated review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(3), 753-771. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1520-z
85. Schmidt, J. R. (2016). Context-specific proportion congruency effects: an episodic learning account and computational model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01806
86. Schmidt, J. R. (2013). The parallel episodic processing (pep) model: Dissociating contingency and conflict adaptation in the item-specific proportion congruent paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 142(1), 119-126.
87. Schmidt, J. R. ve 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, and Cognition, 34(3), 514-523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.514
88. Schmidt, J. R. ve Lemercier, C. (2019). Context-specific proportion congruent effects: Compound-cue contingency learning in disguise. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(5), 1119-1130. Schmidt, J. R., Lemercier, C. ve De Houwer, J. (2014). Context-specific temporal learning with non-conflict stimuli: Proof-of-principle for a learning account of context-specific proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. 1-10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01241
89. Schneider, W. ve Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1-66.
90. Shiffrin, R. M. ve Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127-190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.127
91. Simon, J. R. ve Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory SR compatibility: the effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(3), 300-304.
92. Smith, E. E. ve Kosslyn, S. M. (2014). Cognitive psychology: Mind and brain (Pearson New International 1st Ed.). United States: Pearson
93. Spinelli, G. ve Lupker, S. J. (2020). Item-specific control of attention in the Stroop task: Contingency learning is not the whole story in the item-specific proportion-congruent effect. Memory & Cognition, 48(3), 426-435.
94. Spinelli, G., Morton, J. B., ve Lupker, S. J. (2022). Both task-irrelevant and task-relevant information trigger reactive conflict adaptation in the item-specific proportion-congruent paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 29(6), 2133-2145. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02138-5
95. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643-662.
96. Styles, E. A. (2006). The psychology of attention (Second edition). Hove (GB): Psychology Press.
97. Suh, J., Ileri-Tayar, M. ve Bugg, J. M. (2022). When global and local information about attentional demands collide: evidence for global dominance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 84(6), 1858-1873. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-022-02521-3
98. Treisman, A. (1964). Monitoring and storage of irrelevant messages in selective attention. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3(6), 449-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(64)80015-3
99. Verguts, T. ve Notebaert, W. (2009). Adaptation by binding: A learning account of cognitive control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(6), 252-257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.02.007
100. Verguts, T. ve Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: Dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115(2), 518-525. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.518
101. Weidler, B. J., Dey, A. ve Bugg, J. M. (2020). Attentional control transfers beyond the reference frame. Psychological Research, 84(1), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0984-9
102. Weissman, D. H., ve Schmidt, J. R. (2024). Proactive response preparation contributes to contingency learning: Novel evidence from force-sensitive keyboards. Psychological Research, 1182-1202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01940-1
103. Yerkes, R. M. ve Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit‐formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18(5), 459-482.