Distractor-relevance determines whether task-switching enhances or impairs distractor memory.

Abstract

Richter & Yeung (2012) recently documented a novel task-switching effect, a switch-induced reduction in “memory selectivity,” characterized by relatively enhanced memory for distractor stimuli and impaired memory for target stimuli encountered on switch trials compared to repeat trials. One interpretation of this finding argues that task-switching involves opening a “gate” to working memory, which promotes updating of the task-set, but at the same time allows for increased distraction from task-irrelevant information. However, in that study, the distractor category on a switch trial also represented the task-relevant target category from the previous trial. Thus, distractors were only intermittently task-irrelevant, such that switch-enhanced distractor memory could alternatively be due to remnant attention to the previously relevant stimuli, or “task-set inertia.” Here we adjudicated between the open-gate and the task-set inertia accounts of switch-enhanced distractor memory by assessing incidental memory for distractors that were either intermittently or always task-irrelevant. While we replicated switch-enhanced distractor memory in the intermittently-irrelevant distractor condition, this effect was reversed in the always-irrelevant distractor condition. These results speak against the open-gate account, and instead indicate that switch-enhanced distractor memory arises from task-set inertia, and will thus not be observed for truly task-relevant stimuli presented during switching.

A Novel Theoretical Life Course Framework for Triggering Cognitive Development across the Lifespan

“…This result mirrors a similar weak distinction in infants and young children, although in the latter case, it is based on too little knowledge of what is relevant [e.g., Wu et al, 2011]. When targets are consistently relevant or irrelevant throughout an entire task, older adults (as well as younger adults) have improved performance [Chiu & Egner, 2016;Hertzog, Cooper, & Fisk, 1996]. Issues with switching between or "reweighting" relevant and irrelevant items may be related to a reluctance in older adults to switch in general because it induces switch costs [e.g., Mayr, 2001].…”

Reward Anticipation Dynamics during Cognitive Control and Episodic Encoding: Implications for Dopamine

“…Specifically, under the combination of prolonged reward anticipation and task-informative cue, task control and subsequent memory for target stimuli may be highest, and supported by a ramping dopaminergic response. Further, given results that increased control can increase memory selectivity for task-relevant vs. irrelevant stimuli (Richter and Yeung, 2012; Chiu and Egner, 2016), we hypothesize that memory benefit will be specific to task-relevant stimuli. Using a control paradigm with targets and distractors, such as our flanker task (Chiew and Braver, 2016), with more complex, encode-able stimuli and a subsequent memory test would allow testing of this hypothesis.…”

“…Traditional models of cognitive control and memory suggest a resource-sharing account whereby increased control is associated with worse subsequent memory (Craik et al, 1996), but more recent investigations indicate that control and memory can work synergistically, with increased top-down control leading to increased memory selectivity for task-relevant information (Richter and Yeung, 2015; Chiu and Egner, 2016). Given that contexts where controlled performance may optimize reward are arguably situations where learning is most critical for future reward-seeking, it is important to investigate for a common role of DA and characterize its potentially synergistic activity across cognitive domains.…”

Self-Control as Value-Based Choice

“…Instead, effort can be construed as one of many subjectively-constructed attributes (Dunn, Lutes, & Risko, 2016) that determine value. Effort might reflect an opportunity cost (Kurzban, Duckworth, Kable, & Myers, 2013), signaling the benefit of focusing on other, more valued tasks.…”

“…The value of certain mental activities (e.g., attentional control) is discounted because they feel effortful, even when they are deemed important (Westbrook & Braver, 2015). That is, even when they are high-priority, tasks that rely on cognitive processes with strict parallel processing limits might feel hard because they pose opportunity costs and increase error likelihood (Dunn et al, 2016, Inzlicht et al, 2015; Shenhav et al, in press). People who characteristically treat effort as costly avoid it, and are also poor at self-control (Kool, McGuire, Wang, & Botvinick, 2013).…”