title: Cue-type manipulation dissociates two types of task set inhibition: backward inhibition and competitor rule suppression.
abstract: Backward inhibition (BI) reflects the suppression of a recently abandoned task set to allow for smooth transition to a new task even when the rules do not generate a response conflict. Competitor rule suppression (CRS) reflects the inhibition/suppression of irrelevant task rules when these rules generate a response conflict even if they have not recently been abandoned. We assessed whether BI and CRS are differentially affected by the difficulty in retrieving category-response mappings from memory. Retrieval demands were manipulated via the information provided by the task cues, which either indicated the relevant dimension (dimension cues; "color") or the relevant dimension with its category-to-key mapping (mapping cues; "red green", indicating that "red" and "green" go with the left/right responses, respectively). CRS was larger with dimension compared to mapping cues when cue-type varied between groups and was larger after trials involving dimension cues when cue-type varied on a trial-by-trial basis. In contrast, BI was not influenced by cue-type. These results suggest that task switching involve at least two distinct inhibitory processes, with CRS being related to the ease of retrieval of category-response mappings from memory.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, 84105, Israel. dorchins@post.bgu.ac.il.|Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel. dorchins@post.bgu.ac.il.
authors.forename: Shirley
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Regev
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, 84105, Israel.|Zlotowski Center for Neuroscience, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel.
authors.forename: Nachshon
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Meiran
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology*; D003220:Conflict, Psychological; D003463:Cues; D004193:Discrimination Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007266:Inhibition, Psychological; D008297:Male; D010775:Photic Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2014 Feb;67(2):358-76
references.pmid: 23805948
references.citation: Can J Exp Psychol. 2002 Mar;56(1):18-29
references.pmid: 11901958
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000 Sep;26(5):1124-40
references.pmid: 11009248
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1987 Feb;13(1):89-103
references.pmid: 2951490
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2014 Jul;72:1-26
references.pmid: 24650696
references.citation: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2011 Sep;11(3):292-308
references.pmid: 21590505
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2008 Sep;72(5):473-500
references.pmid: 18350316
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000 Mar;129(1):4-26
references.pmid: 10756484
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Dec;19(6):1193-201
references.pmid: 22918561
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2012;65(2):233-51
references.pmid: 20043273
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2007 Jun;35(4):603-9
references.pmid: 17848018
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2014 May;148:12-8
references.pmid: 24486802
references.citation: Can J Exp Psychol. 2008 Mar;62(1):51-5
references.pmid: 18473629
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2007 Jul;44(4):596-609
references.pmid: 17451492
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2007 Aug;55(1):37-85
references.pmid: 17078941
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Jul;36(4):992-1002
references.pmid: 20565214
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2014 Oct;152:10-8
references.pmid: 25089881
references.citation: Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Apr;31(3):449-64
references.pmid: 21183265
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2013 Mar;66(2):157-211
references.pmid: 23276689
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2013 Jan 11;3:618
references.pmid: 23335909
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2010 Feb;17(1):135-8
references.pmid: 20081174
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014 May;40(3):865-72
references.pmid: 24364724
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Feb;29(1):92-105
references.pmid: 12669750
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Aug;27(4):763-97
references.pmid: 11518143
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2008 Nov;61(11):1629-40
references.pmid: 18609408
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Jul;36(4):1003-9
references.pmid: 20565215
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Feb;34(1):137-57
references.pmid: 18248145
references.citation: Can J Exp Psychol. 2008 Jun;62(2):91-100
references.pmid: 18572986
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2010 Feb;17(1):1-14
references.pmid: 20081154
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 Mar;35(2):466-76
references.pmid: 19271859
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Mar;7(3):134-140
references.pmid: 12639695
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2015 May;79(3):446-62
references.pmid: 24947758
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 Mar;29(2):289-97
references.pmid: 12696816
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Sep;33(5):892-9
references.pmid: 17723067
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003 May;29(3):362-72
references.pmid: 12776747
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Jun;12(3):530-4
references.pmid: 16235641
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2010 Jul;136(4):601-26
references.pmid: 20565170
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2010 Sep;136(5):849-74
references.pmid: 20804238
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2012 Nov;141(3):316-21
references.pmid: 23085143
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2015 Feb;155:57-66
references.pmid: 25557202
references.citation: Brain Cogn. 2014 Jul;88:35-42
references.pmid: 24859089