Literature DB >> 17576544

Contrasting instruction change with response change in task switching.

Ian G M Cameron1, Masayuki Watanabe, Douglas P Munoz.   

Abstract

Switching between two tasks results in switch costs, which are increased error rates and response times in comparison to repeating a task. Switch costs are attributed to a change in task set, which is the internalized rule of how to respond to a stimulus. However, it is not clear if this is because the instruction about which task to perform has changed, or because a programmed response has changed. We examined this question by changing the instruction about whether to perform a pro or an antisaccade to a stimulus, before or after the stimulus was presented. As a saccade response is specified by instruction plus stimulus position, changing the instruction after the stimulus was present resulted in a change in the specified response, whereas changing the instruction beforehand did not. Three experiments investigated; (i) if changing instruction alone or changing the specified response produced switch costs; (ii) if predictability of switching instruction influenced switch costs; and (iii) if predictability of stimulus position influenced switch costs. Regardless of instruction or stimulus predictability, switch costs for both pro and antisaccades consistently resulted if the specified response switched. This suggests that a pro or antisaccade motor program was automatically programmed based on a presented instruction and stimulus position. Therefore, the given physical information drove switch costs, even if subjects could predict a change in task. This study demonstrates that switch costs result if changing an instruction changes a programmed response.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17576544     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-007-0983-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  37 in total

1.  Quantitative analysis of the responses of V1 neurons to horizontal disparity in dynamic random-dot stereograms.

Authors:  S J D Prince; A D Pointon; B G Cumming; A J Parker
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Cortical activation associated with midtrial change of instruction in a saccade task.

Authors:  A Matthews; H Flohr; Stefan Everling
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2002-02-01       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Wisconsin Card Sorting revisited: distinct neural circuits participating in different stages of the task identified by event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  O Monchi; M Petrides; V Petre; K Worsley; A Dagher
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2001-10-01       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Antisaccades and task-switching: interactions in controlled processing.

Authors:  Mariya V Cherkasova; Dara S Manoach; James M Intriligator; Jason J S Barton
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2002-04-17       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Modeling cognitive control in task-switching.

Authors:  N Meiran
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2000

6.  The role of the frontal cortex in task preparation.

Authors:  Marcel Brass; D Yves von Cramon
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.357

Review 7.  Exploring the consequences of the previous trial.

Authors:  Jillian H Fecteau; Douglas P Munoz
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 34.870

8.  Characteristics of "anti" saccades in man.

Authors:  B Fischer; H Weber
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching.

Authors:  Iring Koch; Alan Allport
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2006-03

10.  Countermanding saccades in humans.

Authors:  D P Hanes; R H Carpenter
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 1.886

View more
  5 in total

1.  Switching between gap and overlap pro-saccades: cost or benefit?

Authors:  Marine Vernet; Qing Yang; Marie Gruselle; Mareike Trams; Zoï Kapoula
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-06-13       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Effects of tolcapone and bromocriptine on cognitive stability and flexibility.

Authors:  Ian G M Cameron; Deanna L Wallace; Ahmad Al-Zughoul; Andrew S Kayser; Mark D'Esposito
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2018-02-09       Impact factor: 4.530

3.  Trial-to-trial reoptimization of motor behavior due to changes in task demands is limited.

Authors:  Orban de Xivry J-J; Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Changes to saccade behaviors in Parkinson's disease following dancing and observation of dancing.

Authors:  Ian G M Cameron; Donald C Brien; Kira Links; Sarah Robichaud; Jennifer D Ryan; Douglas P Munoz; Tiffany W Chow
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2013-03-11       Impact factor: 4.003

5.  Dissociable Roles of Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex and Frontal Eye Fields During Saccadic Eye Movements.

Authors:  Ian G M Cameron; Justin M Riddle; Mark D'Esposito
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2015-11-16       Impact factor: 3.169

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.