1. Associative learning and cognitive control Eddy J. Davelaar & Geoff Bird

2. Incongruent trials (><>) slower than congruent trials (<<<)  flanker effect Flanker effect smaller if the previous trial was an incongruent trial  Gratton effect Explained by a computational model that assumes that response conflict is monitored by the ACC, is increased for incongruent trials, and sharpens attention on the next trial. Botvinick, et al., 2001 Jones, et al., 2002 Cho, et al., 2002 Botvinick, et al., 2004 Yeung, et al., 2004 However, the Gratton effect (the interaction) is only observed when target/response repeats across trials  Priming account of the Gratton effect Mayr, et al., 2003; Nieuwenhuis, et al., 2006 >>> <<< <>< ><> 1) IF learning from array to response plan THEN stronger functional connectivity for iI and cC trials in repeats compared to non-repeats 2) IF conflict-modulated attention THEN stronger connectivity between conflict area and attention area

3. This is a DCM study: 2-step process 1) localise relevant voxels 2) Apply DCM to those voxels Stimuli: C: >>>>>, <<<<< I: ><>> N: -->--, --<-- Localisers: Decision: I minus C (DLPFC) Identity: full-array adaptation Conflict: I minus C (ACC/pre-SMA) Attention: I+C-N Design: #nonrepeatrepeat ICIC i36 c n 72 null events Scanning Parameters: 2 runs 19mins each separated by structural scan. Scanner time ~60mins per subject including set-up. 14 subjects (14hr scanner time in total). Event-related design, Stimulus + response period (1.5s) blank ISI (mean 3s, 2-4s range). Random sequence of events. Whole cortex coverage (no cerebellum). TR 2.7s, 30slices, 3.5mm, 10% gap. >><>> 1.5s Mean 3s

4. Conflict area (ACC/pre-SMA) Decision area (DLPFC) Attention area (PPC/FEF) Stimulus area (temporal) WLWL WCWC W i = b 1 (previous trial-type) + b 2 (target/response repetition) Priming account: b 1  0, b 2 >0 Conflict account: b 1 >0, b 2 =0