title: No-go trials can modulate switch cost by interfering with effects of task preparation.
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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08540, USA. alenarto@ucla.edu
authors.forename: Agatha
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Lenartowicz
authors.forename: Nick
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Yeung
authors.forename: Jonathan D
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Cohen
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D002755:Choice Behavior / Q000502:physiology*; D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment / Q000502:physiology; D008297:Male; D008433:Mathematics; D010775:Photic Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology*; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology*; D013334:Students / Q000523:psychology; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2006;53(1):48-57
references.pmid: 16610272
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Apr;11(2):302-6
references.pmid: 15260197
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Aug;27(4):763-97
references.pmid: 11518143
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Jun;32(3):493-516
references.pmid: 16822121
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Mar;33(2):342-56
references.pmid: 17352616
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 Sep;26(5):1124-40
references.pmid: 11009248
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000 Mar;129(1):4-26
references.pmid: 10756484
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2001 Apr;108(2):393-434
references.pmid: 11381835
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2006 Mar 1;26(9):2424-33
references.pmid: 16510720
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000 Sep;129(3):308-39
references.pmid: 11006903
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1988 Jan;43(1):45-52
references.pmid: 3340498
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2008 Nov;19(11):1146-53
references.pmid: 19076487
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 May;28(3):468-83
references.pmid: 12018499
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Feb;29(1):92-105
references.pmid: 12669750
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2004 May;16(4):609-20
references.pmid: 15165351
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Oct;11(5):832-40
references.pmid: 15732691
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 2007 Mar;97(3):2480-9
references.pmid: 17251361
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2002 Jan;13(1):27-33
references.pmid: 11892775
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Jun;29(3):575-99
references.pmid: 12848327
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2006 Sep;34(6):1250-9
references.pmid: 17225506
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2002 May;44(3):297-337
references.pmid: 11971634
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2005 Jun;33(4):624-34
references.pmid: 16248327
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Nov;33(6):1062-75
references.pmid: 17983313
references.citation: Neuroscientist. 2007 Jun;13(3):214-28
references.pmid: 17519365
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Apr;29(2):455-69
references.pmid: 12760628
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 Nov;26(6):1445-60
references.pmid: 11185776
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2005;52(2):125-30
references.pmid: 15850159
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2009 May;73(3):407-16
references.pmid: 18446364
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2001 Jul;108(3):624-52
references.pmid: 11488380
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2004;51(1):52-8
references.pmid: 14959506
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1988 Jan;16(1):64-70
references.pmid: 2448578
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2007 Oct;114(4):887-953
references.pmid: 17907868
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1995 Jun;21(3):498-511
references.pmid: 7790830
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2001 Dec;130(4):764-78
references.pmid: 11757879
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Jun;12(3):530-4
references.pmid: 16235641
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 May;29(3):362-72
references.pmid: 12776747