{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025874125874125874, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0034965034965034965, 'mean_word_length': 5.655813953488372, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Precueing spatial S-R correspondence: is there regulation of expected response conflict?

Four experiments investigated the ability to prepare for the level of forthcoming stimulus-response correspondence in choice-response tasks. In a Simon task, participants responded to the color of spatially variable stimuli with spatially variable responses. Participants were given advance information about whether a forthcoming stimulus-response event would be spatially corresponding, neutral, or spatially noncorresponding. Reliable cues decreased reaction times (RTs) in the corresponding conditions of 2- and 3-choice tasks, decreased RTs in noncorresponding conditions of a 2-choice task but not in a 3-choice task, and left RTs in neutral conditions unaffected. The pattern of results suggests that participants used reliable cues for responding to the nominally irrelevant stimulus location if the correct response could be inferred from location (attention switching). By contrast, the lack of cueing effects on performance in noncorresponding conditions of 3-choice tasks suggests that participants cannot use cues for changing the attentional weights of processing channels for different stimulus dimensions (gating). In summary, gating may be involved in the regulation of experienced response conflict, but the present results suggest that it is not involved in the regulation of expected (i.e., predicted) response conflict.