Task Switching Processes

Jamadar, Sharna; Thienel, Renate; Karayanidis, Frini

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-397025-1.00250-5

Cited by 39 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 84 publications

(119 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mirelman et al (2011), for instance, reported better TMT performance in Parkinson's disease patients after dual task treadmill training. Furthermore, task switching requires cognitive control and has been found in many studies to rely on the cognitive control network (e.g., Jamadar, Thienel, & Karayanidis, 2015) which comprises SPL activation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging gait analysis: An fMRI dual task study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging gait analysis: An fMRI dual task study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These paradigms (Allport et al, ; Meiran, Chorev, & Sapir, ; Monsell, ; Rogers & Monsell, ; Rubinstein, Meyer, & Evan, ) target cognitive control mechanisms required to shift between goals or task sets (e.g., classifying the number 3 based on parity [odd vs. even] or magnitude [< 5 or > 5], see Figure d; for overview of paradigms, see Kiesel et al, , and Jamadar, Thienel, & Karayanidis, ; see also Baniqued et al, ; Provost et al, ). Here, cognitive control processes are required to implement the information provided by external cues (e.g., the letters P or M, to indicate parity or magnitude, presented prior to the stimulus, see Figure d) or internal cues (e.g., implement an instruction to change task every two trials) on the current target.…”

Section: Tests and Paradigms Used To Assess Or Manipulate Cognitive Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By and large, DAN is activated during conditions in which control is needed to select, maintain, or switch between one or more sets of stimulus‐response rules that are mapped to different contextually defined task goals. Functional MRI studies have shown that components of this network are activated in task‐switching paradigms, and more strongly so for switch than for repeat trials (for reviews, see De Baene, Kuhn, & Brass, ; Ruge, Jamadar, Zimmermann, & Karayanidis, ; see activation likelihood estimation [ALE] meta‐analyses in Jamadar et al, ). This network could therefore be viewed as supporting “shifting” operations in Miyake and Friedman's view.…”

Section: Brain Mechanisms In Support Of Cognitive Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, task-switching paradigms allow us to differentially manipulate the need for updating and the need for interference control and differentiate their impact on shifting efficiency (for reviews, see Karayanidis et al, 2010;Kiesel et al, 2010;Vandierendonck et al, 2010). Variants of the task-switching paradigm also offer the opportunity to differentially manipulate and measure the relative effects of sustained versus transient proactive control, proactive versus reactive control, goal updating versus task-set updating, variations in working memory load, internal versus external cueing, stimulus and/or response level interference, as well as error processing and response adaptation on both performance and electrophysiological measures of task-switching at different points across the cue-target-response timeline (Jamadar et al, 2015;Karayanidis & Jamadar, 2014).…”

Section: Disparate Views Regarding the Spatial And Functionalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dynamics of cognitive control: Theoretical bases, paradigms, and a view for the future

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive control (with the closely related concepts of attention control and executive function) encompasses the collection of processes that are involved in generating and maintaining appropriate task goals and suppressing task goals that are no longer relevant, as well as the way in which current goal representations are used to modify attentional biases to improve task performance. Here, we provide a comprehensive but nonexhaustive review of this complex literature, with an emphasis on the contributions made by techniques for studying human brain function. The review is divided into five sections: (a) overview and historical perspective of cognitive control, its subcomponent processes, and its neural substrate; (b) most common types of tasks used to assess and/or manipulate the level of control; (c) main research findings obtained with various imaging methodologies, with a focus on ERP data, and briefer overviews of oscillatory (event-related spectral perturbations) and fMRI data; (d) major theories of cognitive control; and (e) discussion of open questions regarding how to integrate the various dimensions of control, as well as the faster versus slower temporal dynamics informing this complex and multifaceted concept.

show abstract

“…The ability to flexibly adapt behavior to meet changing contextual demands is the hallmark of cognitive control. A large body of research has used variations of the task‐switching paradigm to study cognitive control processes (for recent reviews, see Jamadar, Thienel, & Karayanidis, ; Vandierendonck, Liefooghe, & Verbruggen, ) and has shown that both proactive and reactive control processes play a role in effective cognitive flexibility (Braver, Gray, & Burgess, ). In task‐switching paradigms, task switch trials are associated with poorer performance than task repeat trials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intertrial RT variability affects level of target‐related interference in cued task switching

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In cued task switching, performance relies on proactive and reactive control processes. Proactive control is evident in the reduction in switch cost under conditions that promote advance preparation. However, the residual switch cost that remains under conditions of optimal proactive control indicates that, on switch trials, the target continues to elicit interference that is resolved using reactive control. We examined whether posttarget interference varies as a function of trial-by-trial variability in preparation. We investigated target congruence effects on behavior and target-locked ERPs extracted across the response time (RT) distribution, using orthogonal polynomial trend analysis (OPTA). Early N2, late N2, and P3b amplitudes were differentially modulated across the RT distribution. There was a large congruence effect on late N2 and P3b, which increased with RT for P3b amplitude, but did not vary with trial type. This suggests that target properties impact switch and repeat trials equally and do not contribute to residual switch cost. P3b amplitude was larger, and latency later, for switch than repeat trials, and this difference became larger with increasing RT, consistent with sustained carryover effects on highly prepared switch trials. These results suggest that slower, less prepared responses are associated with greater target-related interference during target identification and processing, as well as slower, more difficult decision processes. They also suggest that neither general nor switch-specific preparation can ameliorate the effects of target-driven interference. These findings highlight the theoretical advances achieved by integrating RT distribution analyses with ERP and OPTA to examine trial-by-trial variability in performance and brain function.

show abstract

Task Switching Processes

Cited by 39 publications

References 84 publications

Imaging gait analysis: An fMRI dual task study

Imaging gait analysis: An fMRI dual task study

Dynamics of cognitive control: Theoretical bases, paradigms, and a view for the future

Intertrial RT variability affects level of target‐related interference in cued task switching

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About