No-go Trials Can Modulate Switch Cost by Interfering with Effects of Task Preparation

Overview

Journal Psychol Res

Specialty Psychology

Date 2010 May 18

PMID 20473686

Citations 9

Authors

Agatha Lenartowicz

Nick Yeung

Jonathan D Cohen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

It has recently been shown that the cost associated with switching tasks is eliminated following 'no-go' trials, in which response selection is not completed, suggesting that the switch cost depends on response selection. However, no-go trials may also affect switch costs by interfering with the effects of task preparation that precede response selection. To test this hypothesis we evaluated switch costs following standard go trials with those following two types of non-response trials: no-go trials, for which a stimulus is presented that indicates no response should be made (Experiment 1); and cue-only trials in which no stimulus is presented following the task cue (Experiment 2). We hypothesized that eliminating no-go stimuli would reveal effects of task preparation on the switch cost in cue-only trials. We found no switch cost following no-go trials (Experiment 1), but a reliable switch cost in cue-only trials (i.e., when no-go stimuli were removed; Experiment 2). We conclude that no-go trials can modulate the switch cost, independent of their effect on response selection, by interfering with task preparation, and that the effects of task preparation on switch cost are more directly assessed by cue-only trials.

Citing Articles

Inhibition of cued but not executed task sets depends on cue-task compatibility and practice.

Berger A, Koch I, Kiefer M Psychol Res. 2024; 88(7):2036-2058.

PMID: 39080024 PMC: 11450066. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-024-02013-z.

Investigating task preparation and task performance as triggers of the backward inhibition effect.

Prosser L, Yamaguchi M, Swainson R Psychol Res. 2022; 87(6):1816-1835.

PMID: 36571593 PMC: 10366292. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-022-01780-x.

When two actors perform different tasks: Still no evidence for shared task-sets in joint task switching.

Yamaguchi M, Shah H, Hommel B Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2021; 74(11):1914-1923.

PMID: 34169753 PMC: 8450987. DOI: 10.1177/17470218211031545.

Evidence for a multicomponent hierarchical representation of dual tasks.

Hirsch P, Roesch C, Koch I Mem Cognit. 2020; 49(2):350-363.

PMID: 32989661 PMC: 7886772. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-020-01097-3.

The effect of performing versus preparing a task on the subsequent switch cost.

Swainson R, Prosser L, Karavasilev K, Romanczuk A Psychol Res. 2019; 85(1):364-383.

PMID: 31624918 PMC: 7851012. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-019-01254-7.

References

Verbruggen F, Liefooghe B, Vandierendonck A . Selective stopping in task switching: The role of response selection and response execution. Exp Psychol. 2006; 53(1):48-57. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169.53.1.48. View

Kleinsorge T, Gajewski P . Preparation for a forthcoming task is sufficient to produce subsequent shift costs. Psychon Bull Rev. 2004; 11(2):302-6. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196574. View

Rubinstein J, Meyer D, Evans J . Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001; 27(4):763-97. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.27.4.763. View

Monsell S, Mizon G . Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process?. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006; 32(3):493-516. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.493. View

Verbruggen F, Liefooghe B, Vandierendonck A, Demanet J . Short cue presentations encourage advance task preparation: a recipe to diminish the residual switch cost. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007; 33(2):342-56. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.342. View

Mayr U, Kliegl R . Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000; 26(5):1124-40. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.26.5.1124. View

Mayr U, Keele S . Changing internal constraints on action: the role of backward inhibition. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000; 129(1):4-26. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.129.1.4. View

Logan G, Gordon R . Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychol Rev. 2001; 108(2):393-434. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.393. View

Aron A, Poldrack R . Cortical and subcortical contributions to Stop signal response inhibition: role of the subthalamic nucleus. J Neurosci. 2006; 26(9):2424-33. PMC: 6793670. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4682-05.2006. View

10.

Gopher D, Armony L, Greenshpan Y . Switching tasks and attention policies. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000; 129(3):308-39. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.129.3.308. View

11.

Tipper S, MacQueen G, Brehaut J . Negative priming between response modalities: evidence for the central locus of inhibition in selective attention. Percept Psychophys. 1988; 43(1):45-52. DOI: 10.3758/bf03208972. View

12.

Aron A, Verbruggen F . Stop the presses: dissociating a selective from a global mechanism for stopping. Psychol Sci. 2008; 19(11):1146-53. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02216.x. View

13.

Dreisbach G, Haider H, Kluwe R . Preparatory processes in the task-switching paradigm: evidence from the use of probability cues. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002; 28(3):468-83. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.28.3.468. View

14.

Schuch S, Koch I . The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003; 29(1):92-105. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.29.1.92. View

15.

Brass M, von Cramon D . Decomposing components of task preparation with functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Cogn Neurosci. 2004; 16(4):609-20. DOI: 10.1162/089892904323057335. View

16.

Logan G, Bundesen C . Very clever homunculus: compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure. Psychon Bull Rev. 2005; 11(5):832-40. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196709. View

17.

Coxon J, Stinear C, Byblow W . Selective inhibition of movement. J Neurophysiol. 2007; 97(3):2480-9. DOI: 10.1152/jn.01284.2006. View

18.

Altmann E, Gray W . Forgetting to remember: the functional relationship of decay and interference. Psychol Sci. 2002; 13(1):27-33. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.00405. View

19.

Logan G, Bundesen C . Clever homunculus: is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure?. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003; 29(3):575-99. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.29.3.575. View

20.

Logan G, Schneider D . Priming or executive control? Associative priming of cue encoding increases "switch costs" in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Mem Cognit. 2007; 34(6):1250-9. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193269. View