Further Argumentation for Conflict Adaptation Not Being Domain General: Response to Novick et al. (2025)

We agree with the commentary that discrepant results across cross-task conflict adaptation studies are likely explained by methodological differences. Considering additional studies and paradigms, we argue that, collectively, the weight of the evidence suggests conflict adaptation is domain-specific; the exception being the visual world paradigm. Further argumentation is provided for why the visual world paradigm may in fact be showing domain-specific conflict adaptation within visual attentional control. The additional methodological concerns raised in the commentary about our study either do not appear consistently across all of our experiments or we provide further data or argumentation to demonstrate they are in fact not a concern. Our original article did not claim that cognitive control does not apply in language processing, but that a domain-specific account of cognitive control may be feasible and should be explored in future work.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Languages
Published
2025-10-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/languages10100262
Primary Topic
Agricultural risk and resilience
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Further Argumentation for Conflict Adaptation Not Being Domain General: Response to Novick et al. (2025)

J. C. Chen, Andrea Santi, Varvara Kuz, Clement Veall et al.
Languages
Agricultural risk and resilience
article

Further Argumentation for Conflict Adaptation Not Being Domain General: Response to Novick et al. (2025)

J. C. Chen, Andrea Santi, Varvara Kuz, Clement Veall, Keyue Chen, Zhengping Xu, Xuzi Qi, Yuanqi Zheng, Fangzhou Cai
article en

Abstract

We agree with the commentary that discrepant results across cross-task conflict adaptation studies are likely explained by methodological differences. Considering additional studies and paradigms, we argue that, collectively, the weight of the evidence suggests conflict adaptation is domain-specific; the exception being the visual world paradigm. Further argumentation is provided for why the visual world paradigm may in fact be showing domain-specific conflict adaptation within visual attentional control. The additional methodological concerns raised in the commentary about our study either do not appear consistently across all of our experiments or we provide further data or argumentation to demonstrate they are in fact not a concern. Our original article did not claim that cognitive control does not apply in language processing, but that a domain-specific account of cognitive control may be feasible and should be explored in future work.

LanguagesVol. 10(10)
University College London (GB)
Arts and Humanities Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 63%
Agricultural risk and resilience
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.