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