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

被引:0
|
作者
Agatha Lenartowicz
Nick Yeung
Jonathan D. Cohen
机构
[1] Princeton University,Department of Psychology
[2] University of Oxford,Department of Experimental Psychology
[3] Princeton University,Princeton Neuroscience Institute
[4] University of California Los Angeles,Department of Psychology
来源
Psychological Research | 2011年 / 75卷
关键词
Switch Cost; Response Selection; Stimulus Interval; Task Preparation; Task Rule;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:66 / 76
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] No-go trials can modulate switch cost by interfering with effects of task preparation
    Lenartowicz, Agatha
    Yeung, Nick
    Cohen, Jonathan D.
    PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH-PSYCHOLOGISCHE FORSCHUNG, 2011, 75 (01): : 66 - 76
  • [2] An interfering Go/No-go task does not affect accuracy in a Concealed Information Test
    Ambach, Wolfgang
    Stark, Rudolf
    Peper, Martin
    Vaitl, Dieter
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY, 2008, 68 (01) : 6 - 16
  • [3] No-go trials in task switching: effects on the task-set and task-space level
    Scheil, Juliane
    Kleinsorge, Thomas
    PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH-PSYCHOLOGISCHE FORSCHUNG, 2022, 86 (04): : 1097 - 1107
  • [4] No-go trials in task switching: effects on the task-set and task-space level
    Juliane Scheil
    Thomas Kleinsorge
    Psychological Research, 2022, 86 : 1097 - 1107
  • [5] Adaptive Strategies for the Elderly in Inhibiting Irrelevant and Conflict No-Go Trials while Performing the Go/No-Go Task
    Hsieh, Shulan
    Wu, Mengyao
    Tang, Chien-Hui
    FRONTIERS IN AGING NEUROSCIENCE, 2016, 7
  • [6] EFFECTS OF PRELIMINARY INFORMATION IN A GO VERSUS NO-GO TASK
    MILLER, J
    SCHAFFER, R
    HACKLEY, SA
    ACTA PSYCHOLOGICA, 1991, 76 (03) : 241 - 292
  • [7] The role of response inhibition in temporal preparation: Evidence from a go/no-go task
    Los, Sander A.
    COGNITION, 2013, 129 (02) : 328 - 344
  • [8] Task manipulation effects on the relationship between working memory and go/no-go task performance
    Wiemers, Elizabeth A.
    Redick, Thomas S.
    CONSCIOUSNESS AND COGNITION, 2019, 71 : 39 - 58
  • [9] Task-switching with antisaccades versus no-go trials: a comparison of inter-trial effects
    Jason J. S. Barton
    Mustafa Raoof
    Omar Jameel
    Dara S. Manoach
    Experimental Brain Research, 2006, 172 : 114 - 119
  • [10] Behavioral effects of sub-anesthetic ketamine in a go/no-go task
    Nilsen, Andred Sevenius
    Juel, Bjorn Erik
    Farnes, Nadine
    Romundstad, Luis
    Storm, Johan Frederik
    JOURNAL OF PSYCHEDELIC STUDIES, 2020, 4 (03): : 156 - 162