Task-switching preparation across semantic and spatial domains: An event-related potential study

Capizzi, Mariagrazia; Fehér, Kristoffer; Penolazzi, Barbara; Vallesi, Antonino

doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.06.011

Cited by 20 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of note, the difference in alpha suppression between switch and repeat trials was not as great as that between repeat and all-repeat trials. This result aligns with previous studies showing that, when switch and repeat trials have the same probability to be presented within a block, some reconfiguration sub-processes could also take place on repeat trials, albeit to a lesser degree than what required on switch trials (e.g., Brass & von Cramon, 2004;Capizzi, Fehér, Penolazzi, & Vallesi, 2015;Nicholson, Karayanidis, Poboka, Heathcote, & Michie, 2005). In our specific case, the lack of a preparatory interval and the used trial sequence with equal probability for switch and repeat trials might have partly encouraged the recruitment of similar attentional suppression and memory processes also during repeat trials to maintain the two very demanding task-sets active throughout the mixed block.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Brain oscillatory activity associated with switch and mixing costs during reactive control

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although this ancient Latin quote was not coined with reference to task-switching, a common finding in the cognitive control literature is that switching from one task to another incurs a significant "switch cost" as compared to repeating the same task. Yet, there is also a "mixing cost" when contrasting performance on the all-repeat trials from the single-task blocks and the repeat trials from the mixed blocks (Monsell, 2003; Rubin & Meiran, 2005). The switch cost is generally taken as an index of a phasic task-set reconfiguration process, which operates on a trial-by-trial basis to flexibly switch between different tasks and which itself includes multiple sub-processes such as retrieval of current rules and appropriate stimulus-response mappings from memory, resolution of carryover interference from the previous trial, suppression of the no longer relevant task-set and activation of the new relevant one (Monsell, 2003). Conversely, the mixing cost is thought to reflect higher memory demands

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Brain oscillatory activity associated with switch and mixing costs during reactive control

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The proactive control is presumably involved in this somewhat long period of inhibition, and the central execution system might allocate more attention resources to the new task-set and stimuli. Correspondingly, we expected that, compared with the baseline, the rule inhibition condition might also elicit greater amplitudes in the early ERP components, such as N1 that was associated with attention allocation 54 – 56 and P2 that was sensitive to the early rule change 58 , 59 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…N1 at parietal sites is associated with attentional selection processes such as focusing on task-relevant stimuli 54 – 56 , and variation in N1 amplitude reflects a change in demand of transient inhibition by the proactive attention control 57 . The P2 may be sensitive to an early task-set updating process that would rapidly “detect” a relevant change in the task when a shift is involved 58 , 59 . The shift-sensitive increase in N2 amplitude has been considered as an index of a process of inhibition of the currently irrelevant task-set 60 and intentional control of motor responses, which is applied to enable the appropriate response 61 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distinct brain responses to different inhibitions: Evidence from a modified Flanker Task

Xie

Ren

Cao

et al. 2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whether inhibition is a unitary or multifaceted construct is still an open question. To clarify the electrophysiological distinction among the different types of inhibition, we used a modified flanker paradigm, in which interference inhibition, rule inhibition, and response inhibition were compared to non-inhibition condition. The results indicated that, compared to the non-inhibition condition (1) the interference inhibition condition induced larger negativities during N2 epoch at the frontal region, (2) the rule inhibition condition elicited a larger N1 at the posterior region, followed by a larger P3a at the frontal region, reflecting the function of proactive cognitive control in the new stimulus-reaction (S-R) association, and (3) the response inhibition condition evoked a larger P3b at the posterior region, reflecting the process of suppressing the old response and reprogramming the new action. These findings provide new evidence that distinct neural mechanisms underlie different types of inhibition.

show abstract

“… Miniussi et al (2005) combined ERPs with a cued task-switching paradigm in which participants had to shift, on a trial-by-trial basis, between spatial and verbal (lexical) tasks that employed different stimulus materials. Conversely, Capizzi et al (2015) recently devised a cued task-switching paradigm in which the same stimuli afforded spatial and verbal (semantic) categorization tasks. The results of the two studies differed in that, while in the former study the switch positivity was larger for the verbal as compared to the spatial task, in the latter it was found only for the spatial but not for the semantic task.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrophysiological Evidence for Domain-General Processes in Task-Switching

Capizzi

Ambrosini

Arbula

et al. 2016

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to flexibly switch between tasks is a hallmark of cognitive control. Despite previous studies that have investigated whether different task-switching types would be mediated by distinct or overlapping neural mechanisms, no definitive consensus has been reached on this question yet. Here, we aimed at directly addressing this issue by recording the event-related potentials (ERPs) elicited by two types of task-switching occurring in the context of spatial and verbal cognitive domains. Source analysis was also applied to the ERP data in order to track the spatial dynamics of brain activity underlying task-switching abilities. In separate blocks of trials, participants had to perform either spatial or verbal switching tasks both of which employed the same type of stimuli. The ERP analysis, which was carried out through a channel- and time-uninformed mass univariate approach, showed no significant differences between the spatial and verbal domains in the modulation of switch and repeat trials. Specifically, relative to repeat trials, switch trials in both domains were associated with a first larger positivity developing over left parieto-occipital electrodes and with a subsequent larger negativity distributed over mid-left fronto-central sites. The source analysis reconstruction for the two ERP components complemented these findings by highlighting the involvement of left-lateralized prefrontal areas in task-switching. Overall, our results join and extend recent research confirming the existence of left-lateralized domain-general task-switching processes.

show abstract

Task-switching preparation across semantic and spatial domains: An event-related potential study

Cited by 20 publications

References 46 publications

Brain oscillatory activity associated with switch and mixing costs during reactive control

Brain oscillatory activity associated with switch and mixing costs during reactive control

Distinct brain responses to different inhibitions: Evidence from a modified Flanker Task

Electrophysiological Evidence for Domain-General Processes in Task-Switching

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About