Literature DB >> 25822920

Cue-type manipulation dissociates two types of task set inhibition: backward inhibition and competitor rule suppression.

Shirley Regev1,2, Nachshon Meiran3,4.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25822920     DOI: 10.1007/s00426-015-0663-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Res        ISSN: 0340-0727


  41 in total

1.  Changing internal constraints on action: the role of backward inhibition.

Authors:  U Mayr; S W Keele
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2000-03

2.  The influence of cue-task association and location on switch cost and alternating-switch cost.

Authors:  Katherine D Arbuthnott; Todd S Woodward
Journal:  Can J Exp Psychol       Date:  2002-03

3.  Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval.

Authors:  U Mayr; R Kliegl
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): a theoretical framework for task switching.

Authors:  Nachshon Meiran; Yoav Kessler; Esther Adi-Japha
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2008-03-19

5.  The shielding function of task rules in the context of task switching.

Authors:  Renate Reisenauer; Gesine Dreisbach
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 2.143

6.  Long-term memory and the control of attentional control.

Authors:  Ulrich Mayr; David Kuhns; Jason Hubbard
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2014-03-17       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Two measures of task-specific inhibition.

Authors:  Duncan E Astle; Georgina M Jackson; Rachel Swainson
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2011-06-24       Impact factor: 2.143

8.  "Smart inhibition": electrophysiological evidence for the suppression of conflict-generating task rules during task switching.

Authors:  Nachshon Meiran; Shulan Hsieh; Chi-Chih Chang
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.282

9.  Inhibition, interference, and conflict in task switching.

Authors:  Russell E Costa; Frances J Friedrich
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2012-12

10.  The cuing and priming of cognitive operations.

Authors:  P Sudevan; D A Taylor
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  2 in total

1.  Cue response dissociates inhibitory processes: task identity information is related to backward inhibition but not to competitor rule suppression.

Authors:  Shirley Regev; Nachshon Meiran
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2016-01-13

2.  No-go trials in task switching: effects on the task-set and task-space level.

Authors:  Juliane Scheil; Thomas Kleinsorge
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2021-07-31
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.