## Introduction

## Analysis plan

## Experiment 1

### Methods

#### Participants

^{1}remaining participants, 31 were female and their age ranged from 18 to 35 years (mean age: 19.73 years).

#### Apparatus and stimuli

#### Procedure

### Results

#### Data processing and analysis plan

Experiment | Trial n − 1 completion | ABA | CBA | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

M | SD | M | SD | |||

RT (ms) | ||||||

Experiment 1 | Completed | 1193 | 226 | 1186 | 209 | |

No-execution | 1210 | 199 | 1177 | 202 | ||

Experiment 2 | Completed | 874 | 100 | 841 | 125 | |

Cue-only | 701 | 111 | 726 | 126 | ||

Experiment 3 | Completed | 1179 | 282 | 1116 | 283 | |

Cue-only | 820 | 187 | 897 | 248 | ||

Error (%) | ||||||

Experiment 1 | Completed | 5.70 | 4.97 | 6.15 | 5.62 | |

No-execution | 6.73 | 6.13 | 6.66 | 5.71 | ||

Experiment 2 | Completed | 7.67 | 4.51 | 7.43 | 4.53 | |

Cue-only | 6.61 | 6.75 | 7.59 | 7.28 | ||

Experiment 3 | Completed | 9.43 | 6.69 | 8.71 | 6.17 | |

Cue-only | 6.92 | 5.84 | 6.76 | 5.26 |

#### Reaction time

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.015, d

_{z}= 0.36, indicating that response execution is not necessary to trigger backward inhibition. Unexpectedly, the n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials (7 ms) was not significant, t(39) = 0.71, p

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.242, d

_{z}= 0.11. The n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials was not significantly larger than that following no-execution trials (a mean difference of − 26 ms), t(39) = − 1.45, p

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.922, d

_{z}= − 0.23, indicating that response execution did not increase the strength of inhibition triggered.

#### Percentage error

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.465, d

_{z}= 0.014, and neither was the n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials (− 0.45%), t(39) = − 0.87, p

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.806, d

_{z}= − 0.138. The n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials was not significantly larger than that following no-execution trials (a mean difference of − 0.52%), t(39) = − 0.52, p

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.697, d

_{z}= − 0.082.

### Discussion

## Experiment 2

### Methods

#### Participants

#### Apparatus and stimuli

#### Procedure

### Results

#### Data processing and analysis plan

#### Reaction time

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.985, d

_{z}= − 0.40, indicating that task preparation was not enough to trigger backward inhibition. There was a significant n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials, t(32) = 3.43, p

_{(one-tailed)}< 0.001, d

_{z}= 0.60, with ABA trial sequences being 33 ms slower than CBA trial sequences, indicating that completing all stages of task processing was enough to trigger backward inhibition. The n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials was significantly larger (a mean difference of 58 ms) than that following cue-only trials, t(32) = 5.36, p

_{(one-tailed)}< 0.001, d

_{z}= 0.93.

_{(two-tailed)}= 0.002; however, following cue-only trials, the effect of trial sequence was in the opposite direction, with a 25 ms benefit (rather than a cost) of n − 2 repetition being significant with the two-tailed test, p

_{(two-tailed)}= 0.030.

#### Percentage error

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.953, d

_{z}= − 0.30. The n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials (0.25%) was not significant, t(32) = 0.35, p

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.366, d

_{z}= 0.06. The n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials was not significantly larger than that following cue-only trials (a mean difference of 1.23%), t(32) = 1.45, p

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.079, d

_{z}= 0.25.

### Discussion

## Experiment 3

### Methods

#### Participants

^{2}Of the 45 remaining participants 27 were female and their age ranged from 17 to 37 years old (mean age: 22.1 years).

#### Apparatus and stimuli

### Results

#### Data processing and analysis plan

#### Reaction time

_{(one-tailed)}> 0.999, d

_{z}= − 0.75, indicating that task preparation was not enough to trigger backward inhibition. Following completed trials, there was a significant n − 2 repetition cost (63 ms), t(44) = 3.76, p

_{(one-tailed)}< 0.001, d

_{z}= 0.56, indicating that that completing all stages of task processing was enough to trigger backward inhibition. The n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials was significantly larger (a mean difference of 140 ms) than that following cue-only trials, t(44) = 6.32, p

_{(one-tailed)}< 0.001, d

_{z}= 0.94.

_{(two-tailed)}< 0.001, and that (as in Experiment 2) the trial-sequence effect was in the opposite direction following cue-only trials, an n − 2 repetition benefit of 77 ms being significant with the two-tailed test, p

_{(two-tailed)}< 0.001.

### Percentage error

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.390, d

_{z}= 0.04. There was no significant n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials (0.73%), t(44) = 1.06, p

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.148, d

_{z}= 0.16. The n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials was not significantly larger than that following cue-only trials (a mean difference of 0.56%), t(44) = 0.61, p

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.272, d

_{z}= 0.09.

### Discussion

^{3}To ensure that cue processing had occurred in advance of target onset, Experiment 4 used a double-registration procedure (Arrington et al., 2007) that required participants to respond to the task cue and indicate which task had been cued on every trial before they responded to the target.

## Experiment 4

### Methods

#### Participants

^{4}Of the 42 remaining participants 38 were female and their age ranged from 18 to 40 years old (mean age: 21 years).

#### Apparatus and stimuli

### Procedure

#### Design

### Results

#### Data processing and analysis plan

Trial n − 1 completion | Cue responses | Target responses | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

ABA | CBA | ABA | CBA | |||||

M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | |

RT (ms) | ||||||||

Completed | 797 | 114 | 753 | 103 | 1008 | 212 | 977 | 205 |

Cue-only | 786 | 105 | 772 | 100 | 952 | 205 | 965 | 224 |

Error (%) | ||||||||

Completed | 6.42 | 4.96 | 4.42 | 3.97 | 8.93 | 5.13 | 8.74 | 5.72 |

Cue-only | 6.85 | 5.50 | 4.90 | 4.19 | 8.20 | 5.58 | 8.48 | 5.30 |

#### Reaction time

##### Cue response

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.038, d

_{z}= 0.28, indicating that completing task preparation was enough to trigger backward inhibition. There was also a significant n − 2 repetition cost of 44 ms following completed trials, t(41) = 5.95, p

_{(one-tailed)}< 0.001, d

_{z}= 0.92, indicating that completing all stages of task processing was enough to trigger backward inhibition. The n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials was significantly larger (a mean difference of 30 ms) than that following cue-only trials, t(41) = 3.30, p

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.001, d

_{z}= 0.51, indicating that stages after task preparation increased the strength of backward inhibition triggered.

_{(two-tailed)}< 0.001; the effect of trial sequence following cue-only trials (an n − 2 repetition cost of 14 ms), was not significant with a two-tailed test, p

_{(two-tailed)}= 0.077.

##### Target response

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.795, d

_{z}= − 0.13, indicating that task preparation was not enough to trigger backward inhibition. There was a significant n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials (31 ms), t(41) = 3.02, p

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.002, d

_{z}= 0.47, indicating that completing all the stages of task processing was enough to trigger backward inhibition. The n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials was significantly larger (43 ms) than that following cue-only trials, t(41) = 2.73, p

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.005, d

_{z}= 0.42.

_{(two-tailed)}= 0.004, whereas there was no significant effect of trial sequence following cue-only trials, the numerical n − 2 repetition benefit of 13 ms not being statistically significant, p

_{(two-tailed)}= 0.409.

#### Percentage error

##### Cue response

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.008, d

_{z}= 0.39; this is consistent with the significant cost in the RT data, indicating that task preparation is sufficient to trigger backward inhibition affecting cue responses. There was a significant n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials (2.01%), t(41) = 2.60, p

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.007, d

_{z}= 0.40. There was no significant increase in n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials as compared to that following cue-only trials (a mean difference of 0.05%), t(41) = 0.04, p

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.482, d

_{z}= 0.01.

##### Target response

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.654, d

_{z}= − 0.06. There was no significant n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials (0.19%), t(41) = 0.23, p

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.409, d

_{z}= 0.04. There was no significant increase of n − 2 repetition cost following completed trials as compared to that following cue-only trials (a mean difference of 0.47%), t(41) = 0.48, p

_{(one-tailed)}= 0.316, d

_{z}= 0.07.