Top

Gepubliceerd in:

11-01-2022 | Original Article

The impact of stimulus format on task inhibition during task switching

Auteurs: Stefano Sdoia, Pierpaolo Zivi, Fabio Ferlazzo

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 7/2022

Abstract

Switching between competing tasks is supported by active inhibition of the preceding task. The level of task stimulus processing at which interference between competing tasks must occur for inhibition to be recruited is still unclear. Here, we investigated whether inhibition is recruited by task conflict occurring at an early or late (semantic) stage of task stimulus processing by dissociating the task stimulus format from its meaning. In two experiments, participants performed three different numerical judgment tasks on numerical stimuli that could be presented as digits or number words (e.g., “6” or “six”) in a cued task-switching procedure. The effects of the change of stimulus format for the inhibition of the previous task were investigated and assessed by the N-2 task repetition cost, an index of the extent to which task representations are inhibited. The N-2 task repetition cost observed in the same stimulus format condition disappeared when target stimuli on task N-1 were presented in a different format from stimuli of task N-2 and N. This occurred both when the format changed from digits to number words stimuli (Experiment 1) as well as when it changed from number words to digits stimuli (Experiment 2). Results indicated that task set inhibition is recruited very early during the stimulus processing stage. They also provided evidence that task inhibition is not tied to task preparation processes but operates as a reactive, rather than proactive mechanism of conflict resolution.

vorige artikel On the reliability of behavioral measures of cognitive control: retest reliability of task-inhibition effect, task-preparation effect, Stroop-like interference, and conflict adaptation effect

volgende artikel Instructing item-specific switch probability: expectations modulate stimulus–action priming

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: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). MIT Press.

Arbuthnott, K., & Frank, J. (2000). Executive control in set switching: Residual switch cost and task-set inhibition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087328CrossRefPubMed

Arbuthnott, K., & 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.CrossRef

Aron, A. R. (2007). The neural basis of inhibition in cognitive control. The Neuroscientist, 13(3), 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858407299288CrossRefPubMed

Baddeley, A., Chincotta, D., & Adlam, A. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: Evidence from task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General., 130, 641–657.CrossRef

Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3, 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn755CrossRefPubMed

Emerson, M. J., & Miyake, A. (2003). The role of inner speech in task switching: A dual-task investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00511-9CrossRef

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

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

Gade, M., Souza, A. S., Druey, M. D., & Oberauer, K. (2017). Analogous selection processes in declarative and procedural working memory: N-2 list-repetition and task-repetition costs. Memory & Cognition, 45(1), 26–39.CrossRef

Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 331–355). MIT Press.

Grange, J. A., Kowalczyk, A. W., & O’Loughlin, R. (2017). The effect of episodic retrieval on inhibition in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1568–1583.PubMed

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014648CrossRefPubMed

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, & Cognition, 29, 289–297.

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019842CrossRefPubMed

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. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.1.1CrossRef

Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), 557–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000144CrossRefPubMed

Liston, C., Malaton, S., Hare, T. A., Davidson, M. C., & Casey, B. J. (2006). Anterior cingulate and posterior parietal cortices are sensitive to dissociable forms of conflict in a task-switching paradigm. Neuron, 50, 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2006.04.015CrossRefPubMed

Logan, G. D. (1994). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A users’ guide to the stop signal paradigm. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 189–239). Academic Press.

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

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.CrossRef

Morey, R. D. (2008). Confidence intervals from normalized data: A correction to Cousineau (2005). Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4, 61–64.CrossRef

Oberauer, K. (2009). Design for a working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 45–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51002-XCrossRef

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, 1062–1075. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.1062CrossRefPubMed

Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2006). Task inhibition and task repetition in task switching. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 624–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440500423269CrossRef

Prosser, L. J., Jackson, M. C., & Swainson, R. (2020). Task cues lead to item-level backward inhibition with univalent stimuli and responses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology., 73, 442–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021819882901CrossRef

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

Sakai, K. (2008). Task set and prefrontal cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 31, 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.31.060407.125642CrossRefPubMed

Scheil, J., & Kleinsorge, T. (2014). Tracing the time course of n - 2 repetition costs in task switching. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 3535–3544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4044-4CrossRefPubMed

Scheil, J., & Kleinsorge, T. (2019). Effects of global and local task repetition proportion on n−2 repetition costs. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 579–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021818762087CrossRefPubMed

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

Sdoia, S., & Ferlazzo, F. (2008). Stimulus-related inhibition of task set during task switching. Experimental Psychology, 55, 322–327.CrossRef

Sdoia, S., Zivi, P., & Ferlazzo, F. (2020). Anodal tDCS over the right parietal but not frontal cortex enhances the ability to overcome task set inhibition during task switching. PLoS ONE, 15(2), e0228541. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228541CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sexton, N. J., & Cooper, R. P. (2017). Task inhibition, conflict, and the n-2 repetition cost: A combined computational and empirical approach. Cognitive Psychology, 94, 1–25.CrossRef

Storey, J. D., Taylor, J. E., & Siegmund, D. (2004). Strong control, conservative point estimation and simultaneous conservative consistency of false discovery rates: A unified approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 66, 187–205.CrossRef

Storey, J. D., & Tibshirani, R. (2003). Statistical significance for genome-wide studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science u.s.a., 100, 9440–9445.CrossRef

Tipper, S. P. (2001). Does negative priming reflect inhibitory mechanisms? A review and integration of conflicting views. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 321–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748508400921CrossRef

Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 601–626. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019791CrossRefPubMed

Zhang, R., Stock, A. K., Fischer, R., & Beste, C. (2016). The system neurophysiological basis of backward inhibition. Brain Structure and Function., 221, 4575–4587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-016-1186-0CrossRefPubMed

Titel: The impact of stimulus format on task inhibition during task switching
Auteurs: Stefano Sdoia
Pierpaolo Zivi
Fabio Ferlazzo
Publicatiedatum: 11-01-2022
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 7/2022
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01634-y

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2022

Motor restrictions impair divergent thinking during walking and during sitting

Reaction time-based Concealed Information Test in eyewitness identification is moderated by picture similarity but not eyewitness cooperation

The interplay between unexpected events and behavior in the development of explicit knowledge in implicit sequence learning

Bad after bad is good: previous trial disfluency reduces interference promoted by incongruence

Sustained visual attention improves visuomotor timing

The visual size of graspable objects is needed to induce the potentiation of grasping behaviors even with verbal stimuli