No-go trials can modulate switch cost by interfering with effects of task preparation |
| |
| Authors: | Agatha Lenartowicz Nick Yeung Jonathan D Cohen |
| |
| Institution: | (1) Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA;(2) Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3UD, UK;(3) Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA;(4) Present address: Department of Psychology, University of California Los Angeles, 1285 Franz Hall, P.O. Box 951563, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录！ |
|
