Top

Gepubliceerd in:

31-03-2015 | Original Article

Cue-type manipulation dissociates two types of task set inhibition: backward inhibition and competitor rule suppression

Auteurs: Shirley Regev, Nachshon Meiran

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2016

Abstract

Backward inhibition (BI) reflects the suppression of a recently abandoned task set to allow for smooth transition to a new task even when the rules do not generate a response conflict. Competitor rule suppression (CRS) reflects the inhibition/suppression of irrelevant task rules when these rules generate a response conflict even if they have not recently been abandoned. We assessed whether BI and CRS are differentially affected by the difficulty in retrieving category-response mappings from memory. Retrieval demands were manipulated via the information provided by the task cues, which either indicated the relevant dimension (dimension cues; “color”) or the relevant dimension with its category-to-key mapping (mapping cues; “red green”, indicating that “red” and “green” go with the left/right responses, respectively). CRS was larger with dimension compared to mapping cues when cue-type varied between groups and was larger after trials involving dimension cues when cue-type varied on a trial-by-trial basis. In contrast, BI was not influenced by cue-type. These results suggest that task switching involve at least two distinct inhibitory processes, with CRS being related to the ease of retrieval of category-response mappings from memory.

vorige artikel Mental subtraction and multiplication recruit both phonological and visuospatial resources: evidence from a symmetric dual-task design

volgende artikel Interference of lateralized distractors on arithmetic problem solving: a functional role for attention shifts in mental calculation

Unfortunately, the experimental design in Experiment 2 prevented us from examining the joint influence of the cue-types that were associated with the relevant rule and the competitor rule. Namely, for a relevant rule with mapping cues, a competitor rule that also has mapping cues will always be an adjunct to two congruent rules with dimension cues. By the same token, for a relevant rule with dimension cues, a competitor rule that also has dimension cues implies that the two congruent rules have mapping cues. Therefore, it would not have been possible to distinguish between the roles of the interference from a competitor rule versus the facilitation from the congruent rules in performance.

Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV (pp. 421–452). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Altmann, E. M. (2007). Cue-independent task-specific representations in task switching: Evidence from backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 892. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.892.CrossRefPubMed

Arbuthnott, K. D. (2008). Asymmetric switch cost and backward inhibition: Carryover activation and inhibition in switching between tasks of unequal difficulty. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 91–100. doi:10.1037/1196-1961.62.2.91.CrossRefPubMed

Arbuthnott, K. D., & Woodward, T. S. (2002). The influence of cue-task association and location on switch cost and alternating-switch cost. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 18–29. doi:10.1037/h0087382.CrossRefPubMed

Astle, D. E., Jackson, G. M., & Swainson, R. (2012). Two measures of task-specific inhibition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 233–251.CrossRefPubMed

Braverman, A., Berger, A., & Meiran, N. (2014). The hierarchy of task decision and response selection: A task-switching event related potentials study. Brain and Cognition, 88, 35–42. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2014.04.006.CrossRefPubMed

Braverman, A., & Meiran, N. (2014). Conflict control in task conflict and response conflict. Psychological research, 1–11. doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0565-5.

Brown, J. W., Reynolds, J. R., & Braver, T. S. (2007). A computational model of fractionated conflict-control mechanisms in task-switching. Cognitive Psychology, 55, 37–85. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2006.09.005.CrossRefPubMed

Chiesa, A., Calati, R., & Serretti, A. (2011). Does mindfulness training improve cognitive abilities? A systematic review of neuropsychological findings. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 449–464.CrossRefPubMed

Costa, R. E., & Friedrich, F. J. (2012). Inhibition, interference, and conflict in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 1193–1201. doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0311-1.CrossRef

Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2005). Linking inhibition to activation in the control of task sequences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 530–534. doi:10.3758/BF03193800.CrossRef

Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). The influence of overlapping response sets on task inhibition. Memory & Cognition, 35, 603–609. doi:10.3758/BF03193298.CrossRef

Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2008). Dissociating cue-related and task-related processes in task inhibition: Evidence from using a 2:1 cue-to-task mapping. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 51–55. doi:10.1037/1196-1961.62.1.51.CrossRefPubMed

Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2014). Cue type affects preparatory influences on task inhibition. Acta Psychologica, 148, 12–18. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.12.009.CrossRefPubMed

Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (2010). Heightened conflict in cue-target translation increases backward inhibition in set switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1003–1009. doi:10.1037/a0019129.CrossRefPubMed

Greenberg, J., Reiner, K., & Meiran, N. (2013). “Off with the old”: mindfulness practice improves backward inhibition. Frontiers in psychology, 3, 618. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00618.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hollands, J. G., & Jarmasz, J. (2010). Revisiting confidence intervals for repeated measures designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 135–138. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.1.135.CrossRef

Houghton, G., Pritchard, R., & Grange, J. A. (2009). The role of cue–target translation in backward inhibition of attentional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 466–476. doi:10.1037/a0014648.CrossRefPubMed

Hsieh, S., Chang, C.-C., & Meiran, N. (2012). Episodic retrieval and decaying inhibition in the competitor-rule suppression phenomenon. Acta Psychologica, 141, 316–321. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.09.001.CrossRefPubMed

Hübner, M., Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., & Kluwe, R. H. (2003). Backward inhibition as a means of sequential task-set control: Evidence for reduction of task competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 289–297. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.2.289.CrossRefPubMed

Katzir, M., Ori, B., Eyal, T., & Meiran, N. (2015). Go with the flow: How the consideration of joy versus pride influences automaticity. Acta Psychologica, 155, 57–66. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.12.003.CrossRefPubMed

Katzir, M., Ori, B., Hsieh, S., & Meiran, N. (2014). Competitor Rule Priming: Evidence for priming of task rules in task switching. Psychological Research,. doi:10.1007/s00426-014-0583-3.PubMed

Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874. doi:10.1037/a0019842.CrossRefPubMed

Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 1–14. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.1.1.CrossRef

Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4–26. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.129.1.4.CrossRef

Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1124–1140. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1124.CrossRefPubMed

Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 362. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.362.CrossRefPubMed

Mayr, U., Kuhns, D., & Hubbard, J. (2014). Long-term memory and the control of attentional control. Cognitive Psychology, 72, 1–26. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2014.02.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Meiran, N. (2010). Task Switching: Mechanisms Underlying Rigid vs. Flexible Self-Control. In R. Hassin, K. Ochsner, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Self Control in Society, Mind, and Brain (pp. 202–220). Oxford University Press.

Meiran, N., Hsieh, S., & Chang, C.-C. (2011). “Smart inhibition”: Electrophysiological evidence for the suppression of conflict-generating task rules during task switching. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, 292–308. doi:10.3758/s13415-011-0037-y.CrossRef

Meiran, N., Hsieh, S., & Dimov, E. (2010). Resolving task rule incongruence during task switching by competitor rule suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 992–1002. doi:10.1037/a0019761.CrossRefPubMed

Meiran, N., & Kessler, Y. (2008). The task rule congruency effect in task switching reflects activated long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 137–157. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.34.1.137.PubMed

Meiran, N., Kessler, Y., & Adi-Japha, E. (2008). Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): a theoretical framework for task switching. Psychological Research, 72, 473–500. doi:10.1007/s00426-008-0136-8.CrossRefPubMed

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7.CrossRefPubMed

Oberauer, K. (2009). Design for a working memory. Psychology of learning and motivation, 51, 45–100. doi:10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51002-X.CrossRef

Oberauer, K., Souza, A. S., Druey, M. D., & Gade, M. (2013). Analogous mechanisms of selection and updating in declarative and procedural working memory: experiments and a computational model. Cognitive Psychology, 66, 157–211. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.11.001.CrossRefPubMed

Regev, S., & Meiran, N. (2014). Post-error slowing is influenced by cognitive control demand. Acta Psychologica, 152, 10–18. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.07.006.CrossRefPubMed

Reisenauer, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2014). The shielding function of task rules in the context of task switching. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 358–376. doi:10.1080/17470218.2013.808678.CrossRefPubMed

Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763–797. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.763.PubMed

Scheil, J., & Kleinsorge, T. (2014). N − 2 repetition costs depend on preparation in trials n − 1 and n − 2. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 865–872. doi:10.1037/a0035281.CrossRefPubMed

Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime [Computer software] (version 1.0). Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.

Schneider, & Verbruggen, F. (2008). Inhibition of irrelevant category–response mappings. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1629–1640. doi:10.1080/17470210802138511.CrossRefPubMed

Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 92–105. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.92.PubMed

Sinai, M., Goffaux, P., & Phillips, N. A. (2007). Cue-versus response-locked processes in backward inhibition: Evidence from ERPs. Psychophysiology, 44, 596–609.CrossRefPubMed

Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 89–103. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.13.1.89.PubMed

Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626. doi:10.1037/a0019791.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Cue-type manipulation dissociates two types of task set inhibition: backward inhibition and competitor rule suppression
Auteurs: Shirley Regev
Nachshon Meiran
Publicatiedatum: 31-03-2015
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0663-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2016

Impact of action primes on implicit processing of thematic and functional similarity relations: evidence from eye-tracking

The relation between measures of cognitive and motor functioning in 5- to 6-year-old children

Working memory capacity, controlled attention and aiming performance under pressure

Age-related differences in the P3 amplitude in change blindness

Congruency sequence effects and previous response times: conflict adaptation or temporal learning?

Trained to keep a beat: movement-related enhancements to timing perception in percussionists and non-percussionists