Cargando…
Investigating task preparation and task performance as triggers of the backward inhibition effect
Backward inhibition is posited to aid task switching by counteracting the tendency to repeat a recent task. Evidence that factors such as cue transparency affect backward inhibition seems to imply that it is generated during task preparation, making its absence following trials on which a prepared t...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10366292/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36571593 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01780-x |
_version_ | 1785077136145514496 |
---|---|
author | Prosser, Laura Joy Yamaguchi, Motonori Swainson, Rachel |
author_facet | Prosser, Laura Joy Yamaguchi, Motonori Swainson, Rachel |
author_sort | Prosser, Laura Joy |
collection | PubMed |
description | Backward inhibition is posited to aid task switching by counteracting the tendency to repeat a recent task. Evidence that factors such as cue transparency affect backward inhibition seems to imply that it is generated during task preparation, making its absence following trials on which a prepared task was not performed (nogo trials) surprising. However, the nogo method used in previous studies might have prevented detection of preparation-driven effects. We used a truncated-trial method instead, omitting stages of a trial with no need for a nogo signal. In Experiment 1, an n − 2 repetition cost (suggested to indicate backward inhibition) followed trials truncated after response selection, indicating that response execution is not necessary to trigger backward inhibition. In Experiments 2 and 3, no n − 2 repetition cost was obtained following trials truncated after cue presentation. To ensure some task preparation on cue-only trials, Experiment 4 used a double-registration procedure where participants responded to the task cue and the target on each trial. In contrast to Experiments 2 and 3, a small n − 2 repetition cost followed trials truncated after cue responses, affecting cue responses on the current trial. In addition, the n − 2 repetition cost was increased at cue responses and became evident at target responses when the preceding trial also involved a target response. These results imply that backward inhibition might be generated by processes occurring up to and including a cue response, affecting subsequent cue responses, as well as during task performance itself, affecting subsequent cue and target responses. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00426-022-01780-x. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10366292 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103662922023-07-26 Investigating task preparation and task performance as triggers of the backward inhibition effect Prosser, Laura Joy Yamaguchi, Motonori Swainson, Rachel Psychol Res Original Article Backward inhibition is posited to aid task switching by counteracting the tendency to repeat a recent task. Evidence that factors such as cue transparency affect backward inhibition seems to imply that it is generated during task preparation, making its absence following trials on which a prepared task was not performed (nogo trials) surprising. However, the nogo method used in previous studies might have prevented detection of preparation-driven effects. We used a truncated-trial method instead, omitting stages of a trial with no need for a nogo signal. In Experiment 1, an n − 2 repetition cost (suggested to indicate backward inhibition) followed trials truncated after response selection, indicating that response execution is not necessary to trigger backward inhibition. In Experiments 2 and 3, no n − 2 repetition cost was obtained following trials truncated after cue presentation. To ensure some task preparation on cue-only trials, Experiment 4 used a double-registration procedure where participants responded to the task cue and the target on each trial. In contrast to Experiments 2 and 3, a small n − 2 repetition cost followed trials truncated after cue responses, affecting cue responses on the current trial. In addition, the n − 2 repetition cost was increased at cue responses and became evident at target responses when the preceding trial also involved a target response. These results imply that backward inhibition might be generated by processes occurring up to and including a cue response, affecting subsequent cue responses, as well as during task performance itself, affecting subsequent cue and target responses. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00426-022-01780-x. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-12-26 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10366292/ /pubmed/36571593 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01780-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Prosser, Laura Joy Yamaguchi, Motonori Swainson, Rachel Investigating task preparation and task performance as triggers of the backward inhibition effect |
title | Investigating task preparation and task performance as triggers of the backward inhibition effect |
title_full | Investigating task preparation and task performance as triggers of the backward inhibition effect |
title_fullStr | Investigating task preparation and task performance as triggers of the backward inhibition effect |
title_full_unstemmed | Investigating task preparation and task performance as triggers of the backward inhibition effect |
title_short | Investigating task preparation and task performance as triggers of the backward inhibition effect |
title_sort | investigating task preparation and task performance as triggers of the backward inhibition effect |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10366292/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36571593 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01780-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT prosserlaurajoy investigatingtaskpreparationandtaskperformanceastriggersofthebackwardinhibitioneffect AT yamaguchimotonori investigatingtaskpreparationandtaskperformanceastriggersofthebackwardinhibitioneffect AT swainsonrachel investigatingtaskpreparationandtaskperformanceastriggersofthebackwardinhibitioneffect |