Top

Optie A:

Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
Optie B:

Deel de link per e-mail
Link delen

vorige artikel Learning at any rate: action–effect learning fo...

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

01-01-2011 | Original Article | Uitgave 1/2011 Open Access

No-go trials can modulate switch cost by interfering with effects of task preparation

Tijdschrift:: Psychological Research > Uitgave 1/2011

Auteurs:: Agatha Lenartowicz, Nick Yeung, Jonathan D. Cohen

» Naar de volledige tekst

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.

Onze productaanbevelingen

BSL Psychologie Totaal

Met BSL Psychologie Totaal blijf je als professional steeds op de hoogte van de nieuwste ontwikkelingen binnen jouw vak. Met het online abonnement heb je toegang tot een groot aantal boeken, protocollen, vaktijdschriften en e-learnings op het gebied van psychologie en psychiatrie. Zo kun je op je gemak en wanneer het jou het beste uitkomt verdiepen in jouw vakgebied.

Meer informatie

Allport, A., & Wylie, G. R. (1999). Task-switching: Positive and negative priming of task-set. In G. W. Humphreys, J. Duncan, & A. Treisman (Eds.), Attention, space and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 273–296). Oxford: Oxford Univ Press.

Allport, A., & Wylie, G. R. (2000). Task-switching, stimulus–response bindings and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 35–70). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2002). Forgetting to remember: The functional relationship of decay and interference. Psychological Science, 13(1), 27–33. CrossRefPubMed

Anderson, M.-C., & Neely, J.-H. (1996). Interference and inhibition in memory retrieval. In R. A. Bjork & E. Bjork (Eds.), Memory (Vol. xxii, p. 586). San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.

Aron, A. R. (2007). The neural basis of inhibition in cognitive control. Neuroscientist, 13(3), 214–228. CrossRefPubMed

Aron, A. R., & Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Cortical and subcortical contributions to stop signal response inhibition: Role of the subthalamic nucleus. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(9), 2424–2433. CrossRefPubMed

Aron, A. R., & Verbruggen, F. (2008). Stop the presses: Dissociating a selective from a global mechanism for stopping. Psychol Sci, 19(11), 1146–1153. CrossRefPubMed

Bertelson, P. (1961). Sequential redundancy and speed in serial two-choice responding task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13(2), 90–102. CrossRef

Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652. CrossRefPubMed

Brass, M., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2004). Decomposing components of task preparation with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(4), 609–620. CrossRefPubMed

Coxon, J. P., Stinear, C. M., & Byblow, W. D. (2007). Selective inhibition of movement. Journal of Neurophysiology, 97(3), 2480–2489. CrossRefPubMed

De Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 357–376). Cambridge: MIT Press.

De Jong, R., Coles, M. G. H., & Logan, G. D. (1995). Strategies and mechanisms in nonselective and selective inhibitory motor control. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 21(3), 498–511. CrossRefPubMed

Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., & Kluwe, R. H. (2002). Preparatory processes in the task-switching paradigm: Evidence from the use of probability cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(3), 468–483. CrossRefPubMed

Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2005). Linking inhibition to activation in the control of task sequences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(3), 530–534.

Gilbert, S. J., & Shallice, T. (2002). Task switching: A PDP model. Cognitive psychology, 44(3), 297–337. CrossRefPubMed

Gopher, D., Armony, L., & Greenshpan, Y. (2000). Switching tasks and attention policies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(3), 308–339. CrossRef

Kleinsorge, T., & Gajewski, P. D. (2004). Preparation for a forthcoming task is sufficient to produce a subsequent shift cost. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(2), 302–306.

Koch, I., Gade, M., & Philipp, A. M. (2004). Inhibition of response mode in task switching. Experimental psychology, 51(1), 52–58. CrossRefPubMed

Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2005). Effects of response selection on the task repetition benefit in task switching. Memory & Cognition, 33(4), 624–634.

Lenartowicz, A., & Cohen, J. D. (2006). Effects of no-go stimuli on preparatory control in a cued go/no-go task-switching paradigm . Paper presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Houston, TX.

Logan, G. D. (1983). On the ability to inhibit simple thoughts and actions 1: Stop-signal studies of decision and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(4), 585–606. CrossRef

Logan, G. D. (1985). On the ability to inhibit simple thoughts and actions 2: Stop-signal studies of repetition priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(4), 675–691. CrossRef

Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(3), 575–599. CrossRefPubMed

Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(5), 832–840.

Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situation. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393–434. CrossRefPubMed

Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2006). Priming or executive control? Associative priming of cue encoding increases “switch costs” in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Memory & Cognition, 34(6), 1250–1259.

Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(1), 4–26. CrossRef

Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1124–1140. 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(3), 362–372. CrossRefPubMed

Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1432–1442. CrossRef

Monsell, S. (1996). Control of mental processes. In V. Bruce (Ed.), Unsolved mysteries of the mind: Tutorial essays in cognition (pp. 93–148). Hove: Erlbaum.

Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 493–516. CrossRefPubMed

Norman, K. A., Newman, E. L., & Detre, G. (2007). A neural network model of retrieval-induced forgetting. Psychological Review, 114(4), 887–953. CrossRefPubMed

Philipp, A. M., Jolicoeur, P., Falkenstein, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Response selection and response execution in task switching: Evidence from a go-signal paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 33(6), 1062–1075. CrossRef

Poljac, E., Koch, I., & Bekkering, H. (2009). Dissociating restart cost and mixing cost in task switching. Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung, 73(3), 407–416. CrossRef

Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231. CrossRef

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(4), 763–797. 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(1), 92–105. CrossRefPubMed

Sohn, M. H., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Task preparation and task repetition: Two-component model of task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 764–778. CrossRef

Sohn, M. H., & Carlson, R. A. (2000). Effects of repetition and foreknowledge in task-set reconfiguration. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1445–1460. CrossRefPubMed

Tipper, S. P., & Driver, J. (1988). Negative priming between pictures and words in a selective attention task: Evidence for semantic processing of ignored stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 16(1), 64–70.

Tipper, S. P., Macqueen, G. M., & Brehaut, J. C. (1988). Negative priming between response modalities: Evidence for the central locus of inhibition in selective attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 43(1), 45–52.

Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., Szmalec, A., & Vandierendonck, A. (2005). Inhibiting responses when switching: Does it matter? Experimental psychology, 52(2), 125–130. PubMed

Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Selective stopping in task switching: The role of response selection and response execution. Experimental psychology, 53(1), 48–57. PubMed

Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., Vandierendonck, A., & Demanet, J. (2007). Short cue presentations encourage advance task preparation: A recipe to diminish the residual switch cost. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 33(2), 342–356. CrossRef

Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: The role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 455–469. CrossRefPubMed

Titel: No-go trials can modulate switch cost by interfering with effects of task preparation
Auteurs:: Agatha Lenartowicz
Nick Yeung
Jonathan D. Cohen
Publicatiedatum: 01-01-2011
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-010-0286-3
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Tijdschrift: Psychological Research An International Journal of Perception, Attention, Memory, and Action
Uitgave 1/2011
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Abstract

Onze productaanbevelingen

BSL Psychologie Totaal

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2011

Negative numbers eliminate, but do not reverse, the attentional SNARC effect

Editorial

Automatic attention lateral asymmetry in visual discrimination tasks

Attentional capture and hold: the oculomotor correlates of the change detection advantage for faces

Increasing stimulus intensity does not affect sensorimotor synchronization

Learning at any rate: action–effect learning for stimulus-based actions