En busca de una explicación del Efecto Secuencial de Compatibilidad


  • Jesús Privado Universidad Complutense de Madrid
  • Juan Botella Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
  • Manuel Suero Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
  • Mª Ángeles Quiroga Universidad Complutense de Madrid
  • Roberto Colom
DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.31.2.173071
Palabras clave: Control atencional, conflicto cognitivo, efecto de compatibilidad, efecto secuencial de compatibilidad


Se estudia la modulación del Efecto de Compatibilidad (EC) según la compatibilidad del ensayo previo (Efecto Secuencial de Compatibilidad, ESC) en tres tipos de tareas atencionales, flancos verbal, flancos numérico y Stroop espacial, modeladas a partir de Gratton et al., (1992). Las tareas de flancos y Stroop espacial presentan diferente complejidad cognitiva. Se analiza en estas tareas si la modulación del EC está matizada por la repetición de estímulos exactamente iguales consecutivos (puras réplicas) o es independiente de ésta. Se registran datos de tres muestras independientes (Ntotal = 1.159) para averiguar si los resultados logran reproducirse. Se observa EC para las tres tareas atencionales, pero sólo hay ESC en la tarea de Stroop espacial. El efecto se mantiene después de eliminar del análisis los ensayos que son puras réplicas, un resultado inconsistente con las propuestas de Mayr et al. (2003) y Hommel (1998) pero congruente con la Teoría del Conflicto (Botvinick et al., 2001). Además, se analiza la importancia de la complejidad cognitiva en relación a la perspectiva de Botvinick et al. (2004). Desde este punto de vista  una mayor complejidad se debería reflejar en una mayor presencia de conflicto cognitivo, y, por tanto, un mayor ESC.


Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Biografía del autor/a

Jesús Privado, Universidad Complutense de Madrid

Facultad dePsicología. Departamento de Metodología de las Ciencias del Comportamiento,Campus de Somosaguas, 28223 – Pozuelo de Alarcón, Madrid, Spain.


Arend, I., Colom, R., Botella, J., Contreras, M. J., Rubio, V., & Santacreu, J. (2003). Quantifying cognitive complexity: evidence from a reasoning task. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 659-669.

Baddeley, A. D. (2002). Is working memory still working? European Psychologist, 7, 85-97.

Barriopedro, M. I., & Botella, J. (1998). New evidence for the zoom model using the RSVP technique. Perception & Psychophysics, 60(8), 1406-1414.

Bertelson, P. (1961). Sequential redundancy and speed in a serial two-choice responding task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 90-102.

Botella, J. (1997). Los paradigmas de compatibilidad en el estudio de la atención selectiva. Estudios de Psicología, 57, 79-92.

Botella, J. (1998). Atención. In J. Montserrat, La percepción visual, (pp. 499-532). Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva.

Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624-652.

Botvinick, M. M., Cohen, J. D., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Conflict monitor-ing and anterior cingulated cortex: an update. Cognitive Sciences, 8(12), 539-546.

Braver, T. S., Cole, M. W., & Yarkoni, T. (2010). Vive les differences! Individual variation in neural mechanisms of executive control. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 20, 242–250.

Burle, B., Allain, W., Vidal, F., & Hasbroucq, T. (2005). Sequential compatibility Effects and cognitive control: Does conflict really matter? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(4), 831-837.

Casey B. J., Thomas, K. M., Welsh, T. F., Badgaiyan, R. D., Eccard, C. H., Jennings, J. R., & Crone, E. A. (2000). Dissociation of response conflict, attentional selection, and expectancy with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Proceedings of the National Academic of Sciences, 97(15), 8728-8733.

Cohen, J. D. & Huston, T. A. (1994). Progress in the use of interactive models for understanding attention and performance. En C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV, (pp. 453-456). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cohen, J. D., Servan-Schreiber, D., & McClelland, J. L. (1992). A parallel distributed processing approach to automaticity. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 239-269.

Egner, T., & Hirsch, J. (2005). Cognitive control mechanisms resolve conflict through cortical amplification of task-relevant infor-mation. Nature Neuroscience, 8(12), 1784-1790.

Engle, R. W., Kane, M. J., & Tuholski, S. W. (1999). Individual differ-ences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligences, and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of Active Maintenance and Executive Control (pp. 102-134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of target letters in a non-search task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143-149.

Eriksen, C. W., & James, J. D. S. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40(4), 225-240.

Eriksen, C. W., & Yeh, Y. Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(5), 583.

Fernández-Duque, D., & Knight, M. (2008). Cognitive Control: Dynam-ic, Sustained, and Voluntary Influences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.

Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480-506.

Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183-216.

Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494-500.

Hommel, B. (2007). Feature integration across perception and action: event files affect response choise. Psychological Research, 71, 42-63.

Hommel, B., Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2004). A feature-integration account of sequential effects in the Simon task. Psychological Re-search, 68, 1-17.

Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald III, A. W., Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior Cingulate Conflict Monitoring and Adjustments in Control. Science, 303, 1023-1026.

Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2006). Sequential modulations of correspond-ence effects across spatial dimensions and tasks. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 356-367.

Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5), 450-452).

McClelland, J. L. & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.

McDonald III, A. W., Cohen, J. D., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2000). Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control. Science, 288(9) June, 1835-1838.

Milham, M. P. & Banich, M. T. (2005). Anterior Cingulate Cortex: An fMRI Analysis of Conflict Specificity and Functional Differentia-tion. Human Brain Mapping, 25: 328-335.

Nieuwenhuis, S., Stins, J. F., Posthuma, D., Polderman, T. J. C., Boomsma, D. I., & de Geus, E. J. (2006). Accounting for sequential trial effects in the flanker task: Conflict adaptation or associative priming? Memory & Cognition, 34(6), 1260-1272.

Notebaert, W., Gevers, W., Verbruggen, F., & Liefooghe, B. (2006). Top-down and bottom-up sequential modulations of congruency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1), 112-117.

Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2007). Dissociating conflict adaptation from feature integration: A multiple regression approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33(5), 1256-1260.

Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The ef-fect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300-304.

Soetens, E. (1998). Localizing sequential effects in serial choice reaction time with the information reduction procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(2) 547-568.

Soetens, E., Boer, L. C., & Hueting, J. E. (1983). Expectancy or automat-ic facilitation? Separating sequential effects in two-choice reaction time. Jounal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(5), 598-616.

Soetens, E., & Notebaert, W. (2005). Response monitoring and expec-tancy in random serial RT tasks. Acta Psychologica, 119, 189-216.

Stürmer, B., Seiss, E., & Leuthold, H. (2005). Executive control in the Si-mon task: A dual-task examination of response priming and its suppression. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17(5), 590-618.

Ullsperger, M., Bylsma, L. M., & Botvinick, M. M. (2005). The conflict adaptation effect: It’s just priming. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 5(4), 467-472.

Van Veen, V., Cohen, J. D., Botvinick M. M., Stenger V. A., & Carter C. S. (2001). Anterior cingulate cortex, conflict monitoring and levels of processing. Neuroimage, 14, 1302-1308.

Verbruggen, F., Notebaert, W., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendock, A. (2006). Stimulus and response conflict-induced cognitive control in the flanker task. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13(2), 328-333.

Wendt, M., Kluwe, R. H., & Peters, A. (2006). Sequential modulations of interference evoked by processing task-irrelevant stimulus features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor-mance, 32(3), 644-667.

Wühr, P., & Ansorge, U. (2005). Exploring trial-by-trial modulations of the Simon effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A(4), 705-731.

Cómo citar
Privado, J., Botella, J., Suero, M., Quiroga, M. Ángeles, & Colom, R. (2015). En busca de una explicación del Efecto Secuencial de Compatibilidad. Anales de Psicología / Annals of Psychology, 31(2), 687–696. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.31.2.173071
Psicología cognitiva