More info can be found on our website:
🔗 www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/phil-lang/tr...

Some of the scholars mentioned in this article have presented at The International Memory Reading Group that @jonathannajenson.bsky.social and I run: sites.google.com/view/memoryr...

Thanks for the shout-out, Nir!

Kinda like computational modeling 👀

More generally, we believe this kind of design shows that time is of the essence! Cool insights into the dynamics of cognitive control pop up when you bring participants back for multiple sessions. Huge thanks to my collaborators Rut Zaks‑Ohayon, Yossi Tzelgov, and the incredible Nir Fresco! (fin)

Surprisingly, the impact of task conflict didn’t increase with practice—performance gains were similar after the first session. We think task conflict is strongest when the conflict is novel. (5/n)

We found that repeating the task over consecutive sessions and across weeks improved response times in both congruent and incongruent trials, but the effect persisted. So, while you do get faster, overcoming interference from the sensory and semantic informational conflict doesn’t go away (4/n)

Beyond the informational conflict in Stroop stimuli, we manipulated task conflict by varying the proportion of word vs. non-word stimuli like ####. A higher proportion of non-word stimuli is thought to create greater task conflict, leading to higher expected interference with task stimuli (3/n)

The Stroop task is a classic tool to study cognitive flexibility. But how does repeated practice influence how we handle the conflict between sensory and semantic information encountered in the Stroop task? (2/n)

I think it goes something like laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect the more we know how they are made

Is this a metaphor about sausages?

Randy Beer has a nice piece on this -
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....

I think the motivation was (is?) that dynamical systems need not entail representational talk, unlike classical computation. Totally agree that they work well together though