Neural Mechanisms Underlying the Cost of Task Switching: An ERP Study

Li, Ling; Wang, Meng; Zhao, Qian-Jing; Fogelson, Noa

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042233

Cited by 30 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, participants were instructed that blinks should be synchronized with speaking aloud. Although the time window of this cue-related positive deflection resembled those found in task switching paradigms (e.g., Nicholson et al, 2005; Li et al, 2012) we refrain from further interpretation until this positivity is replicated in a design excluding artifacts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

What I Say is What I Get: Stronger Effects of Self-Generated vs. Cue-Induced Expectations in Event-Related Potentials

Kemper¹,

Umbach²,

Schwager³

et al. 2012

Front. Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expectations regarding future events enable preparatory processes and allow for faster responses to expected stimuli compared to unexpected stimuli. Expectations can have internal sources or follow external cues. While many studies on expectation effects use some form of cueing, a direct comparison with self-generated expectations involving behavioral and psychophysiological measures is lacking. In the present study we compare cue-induced expectations with self-generated expectations that are both expressed verbally in a within-subjects design, measuring behavioral performance, and event-related brain potentials (ERPs). Response time benefits for expected stimuli are much larger when expectations are self-generated as compared to externally cued. Increased amplitudes in both the N2 and P3 components for violations of self-generated expectations suggest that this advantage can at least partially be ascribed to greater perceptual preparation. This goes along with a missing benefit for stimuli matching the expected response only and is mirrored in the lateralized readiness potential (LRP). Taken together, behavioral and ERP findings indicate that self-generated expectations lead to increased premotoric preparation compared to cue-induced expectations. Underlying cognitive or neuronal functional differences between these types of expectation remain a subject for future studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

What I Say is What I Get: Stronger Effects of Self-Generated vs. Cue-Induced Expectations in Event-Related Potentials

Kemper¹,

Umbach²,

Schwager³

et al. 2012

Front. Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…250 ms) might mix the neural responses of cue processing with those of target processing, and the auditory and visual systems may use separate attention mechanisms [15,16] (though this remains controversial), an auditory stimulus of short duration served as the cue for language in this study, to minimize interference by the presence of the cue; the behavioral responses and cue-related event-related potentiats (ERPs) were measured. The target regions were: midline sites (frontal and parietal) due to their roles in task switching [17,18] and frontocentral regions due to their roles in language switching. International Picture Naming Project database [19] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endogenous language control in Chinese-English switching: an event-related potentials study

Jin

Zhang

2014

Neurosci. Bull.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neural basis of language switching, especially endogenous language control, remains largely unclear. We used a cue-stimulus paradigm and measured behavioral indices and scalp event-related potentials to investigate the endogenous control of switching between Chinese and English. In the experiment, unbalanced Chinese (L1) - English (L2) speakers named pictures in L1 or L2 according to an auditory cue presented 700 ms (cue-stimulus interval) before the picture onset. The reaction time (RT) was longer in the switch condition and the switch cost (difference of RTs between switch and repeat conditions) of L1 (L2→L1) was greater than L2 (L1→L2). P2 component elicited by the cue onset showed the neural switch cost of L1 at the frontocentral regions, with a leftward distribution, but not the switch cost of L2. The greater switch cost of L1 in behavioral responses and neural activity suggests that the frontocentral areas play an important role in endogenous language control, and switching back to the native language might require more endogenous control.

show abstract

“…It is important to point out that RTs were faster under the contralateral than the ipsilateral distractor condition in the color task, indicating that the DC may be associated with filtering cost rather than capturing spatial attention [1,16,23]. Thus, we introduce the factor DC reflected as differences in RTs to describe the effects of distractors on target detection [19]. Thus, we introduce the factor DC reflected as differences in RTs to describe the effects of distractors on target detection [19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ipsilateral distractor [19]. We hypothesized that DC will be related to the modulation of attentional capture in visual search.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of task set-modulating attentional capture depends on the distractor cost in visual search

Zhao

Liang²,

Jin³

et al. 2014

NeuroReport

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have confirmed that attention can be modulated by the current task set while involuntarily captured by salient items. However, little is known on which factors the modulation of attentional capture is dependent on when the same stimuli with different task sets are presented. In the present study, participants conducted two visual search tasks with the same search arrays by varying target and distractor settings (color singleton as target, onset singleton as distractor, named as color task, and vice versa). Ipsilateral and contralateral color distractors resulted in two different relative saliences in two tasks, respectively. Both reaction times (RTs) and N2-posterior-contralateral (N2pc) results showed that there was no difference between ipsilateral and contralateral color distractors in the onset task. However, both RTs and the latency of N2pc showed a delay to the ipsilateral onset distractor compared with the contralateral onset distractor. Moreover, the N2pc observed under the contralateral distractor condition in the color task was reversed, and its amplitude was attenuated. On the basis of these results, we proposed a parameter called distractor cost (DC), computed by subtracting RTs under the contralateral distractor condition from the ipsilateral condition. The results suggest that an enhanced DC might be related to the modification of N2pc in searching for the color target. Taken together, these findings provide evidence that the effect of task set-modulating attentional capture in visual search is related to the DC.

show abstract

Neural Mechanisms Underlying the Cost of Task Switching: An ERP Study

Cited by 30 publications

References 51 publications

What I Say is What I Get: Stronger Effects of Self-Generated vs. Cue-Induced Expectations in Event-Related Potentials

What I Say is What I Get: Stronger Effects of Self-Generated vs. Cue-Induced Expectations in Event-Related Potentials

Endogenous language control in Chinese-English switching: an event-related potentials study

Effect of task set-modulating attentional capture depends on the distractor cost in visual search

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About