The time course of the asymmetrical " local" switch cost: Evidence from event-related potentials

Biological Psychology

Volumn 86, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 210-218

  Martin, Clara D ^a   Barcelo, Francisco ^b   Hernandez, Mireia ^c,d   Costa, Albert ^a,e  

^a UNIVERSITAT POMPEU FABRA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITAT DE LES ILLES BALEARS   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

^e INSTITUCIÓ CATALANA DE RECERCA I ESTUDIS AVANÇATS ICREA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Attentional capture; Frontal N1; Task difficulty; Task execution; Task preparation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; BRAIN DEPTH STIMULATION; BRAIN FUNCTION; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MENTAL PERFORMANCE; MENTAL TASK; NERVE POTENTIAL; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSE TIME;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; CONTINGENT NEGATIVE VARIATION; CUES; ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY; EVOKED POTENTIALS, VISUAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; REACTION TIME; TIME FACTORS; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79952315961     PISSN: 03010511     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.12.001     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Adrover-Roig D., Barcelo F. Individual differences in aging and cognitive control modulate the neural indexes of context updating and maintenance during task switching. Cortex 2010, 46(4):434-450.
2. Allport A. Shifting intentional set: exploring the dynamic control of tasks. Attention and Performance XV: Conscious and Nonconscious Information Processing 1994, 421-452. MIT Press. C. Umilta, M. Moscovitch (Eds.).
3. Allport A., Wylie G. Task-switching: positive and negative priming of task-set. Attention, Space and Action: Studies in Cognitive Neuroscience 1999, 273-296. Oxford University Press, Oxford. G.W. Humphreys, J. Duncan, A.M. Treisman (Eds.).
4. Allport A., Wylie G. Task-switching, stimulus-response bindings and negative priming. Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII 2000, 35-70. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. S. Monsell, J. Driver (Eds.).
5. Altmann E.M. Functional decay of memory for tasks. Psychological Research 2002, 66(4):287-297.
6. Altmann E.M. Task switching and the pied homunculus: where are we being led? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2003, 7(8):340-341.
7. Altmann E.M., Gray W.D. An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Review 2008, 115(3):602-639.
8. Astle D.E., Jackson G.M., et al. The role of spatial information in advance task-set control: an event-related potential study. European Journal of Neuroscience 2008, 28(7):1404-1418.
9. Barcelo F. The Madrid card sorting test (MCST): a task switching paradigm to study executive attention with event-related potentials. Brain Research Brain Research Protocols 2003, 11(1):27-37.
10. Barcelo F., Escera C., et al. Task switching and novelty processing activate a common neural network for cognitive control. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2006, 18(10):1734-1748.
11. Barcelo F., Munoz-Cespedes J.M., et al. Attentional set shifting modulates the target P3b response in the Wisconsin card sorting test. Neuropsychologia 2000, 38(10):1342-1355.
12. Barcelo F., Perianez J.A., et al. Think differently: a brain orienting response to task novelty. Neuroreport 2002, 13(15):1887-1892.
13. Barcelo F., Perianez J.A., et al. An information theoretical approach to task-switching: evidence from cognitive brain potentials in humans. Frontier in Human Neuroscience 2007, 1:13.
14. Barcelo F., Perianez J.A., et al. An information theoretical approach to task-switching: evidence from cognitive brain potentials in humans. Frontier in Human Neuroscience 2008, 1:13.
15. Barcelo F., Sanz M., et al. The Wisconsin card sorting test and the assessment of frontal function: a validation study with event-related potentials. Neuropsychologia 1997, 35(4):399-408.
16. Brass M., Ullsperger M., et al. Who comes first? The role of the prefrontal and parietal cortex in cognitive control. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2005, 17(9):1367-1375.
17. Bryck R.L., Mayr U. Task selection cost asymmetry without task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2008, 15(1):128-134.
18. Clark V., Hillyard S.A. Spatial selective attention affects early extrastriate but not striate components of the visual evoked potential. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1996, 8:387-402.
19. Costa A., Santesteban M. Bilingual word perception and production: two sides of the same coin? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2004, 8(6). 253; (author reply 254).
20. Desimone R., Duncan J. Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience 1995, 18:193-222.
21. Eimer M. An event-related potential (ERP) study of transient and sustained visual attention to color and form. Biological Psychology 1997, 44(3):143-160.
22. Escera C., Alho K., et al. Neural mechanisms of involuntary attention to acoustic novelty and change. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 1998, 10(5):590-604.
23. Garcia-Garcia M., Barcelo F., et al. The role of the dopamine transporter DAT1 genotype on the neural correlates of cognitive flexibility. European Journal of Neuroscience 2010, 31(4):754-760.
24. Giard M.H., Perrin F., et al. Dissociation of temporal and frontal components in the human auditory N1 wave: a scalp current density and dipole model analysis. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1994, 92(3):238-252.
25. Gilbert S.J., Shallice T. Task switching: a PDP model. Cognitive Psychology 2002, 44(3):297-337.
26. Gopher D., Armony L., et al. Switching tasks and attention policies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2000, 129(3):308-339.
27. Goschke T. Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching. Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII 2000, 331-355. MIT Press. S. Monsell, J. Driver (Eds.).
28. Gratton G., Coles M.G., et al. A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 1983, 55(4):468-484.
29. Hillyard S.A., Anllo-Vento L. Event-related brain potentials in the study of visual selective attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 1998, 95(3):781-787.
30. Jackson G.M., Swainson R., et al. ERP correlates of a receptive language-switching task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A 2004, 57(2):223-240.
31. Jost K., Mayr U., et al. Is task switching nothing but cue priming? Evidence from ERPs. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience 2008, 8(1):74-84.
32. Karayanidis F., Coltheart M., et al. Electrophysiological correlates of anticipatory and poststimulus components of task switching. Psychophysiology 2003, 40(3):329-348.
33. Kieffaber P.D., Hetrick W.P. Event-related potential correlates of task switching and switch costs. Psychophysiology 2005, 42(1):56-71.
34. Kimberg D.Y., Aguirre G.K., et al. Modulation of task-related neural activity in task-switching: an fMRI study. Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research 2000, 10(1-2):189-196.
35. Lavric A., Mizon G.A., et al. Neurophysiological signature of effective anticipatory task-set control: a task-switching investigation. European Journal of Neuroscience 2008, 28(5):1016-1029.
36. Mayr U. Inhibition of action rules. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2002, 9(1):93-99.
37. Mayr U., Kliegl R. Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition 2000, 26(5):1124-1140.
38. Mayr U., Kliegl R. Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition 2003, 29(3):362-372.
39. Meiran N. Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 1996, 22:1423-1442.
40. Meuter R.F.I., Allport A. Bilingual language-switching in naming: asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language 1999, 40:25-40.
41. Miller E.K. The prefrontal cortex and cognitive control. Nature Reviews in the Neurosciences 2000, 1(1):59-65.
42. Milner B. Effects of different brain lesions on card sorting. Archives of Neurology 1963, 9:100-110.
43. Miniussi C., Marzi C.A., et al. Modulation of brain activity by selective task sets observed using event-related potentials. Neuropsychologia 2005, 43(10):1514-1528.
44. Monsell S. Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2003, 7(3):134-140.
45. Naatanen R. The role of attention in auditory information processing as revealed by event-related potentials and other brain measures of cognitive function. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1990, 13:201-288.
46. Naatanen R., Picton T. The N1 wave of the human electric and magnetic response to sound: a review and an analysis of the component structure. Psychophysiology 1987, 24(4):375-425.
47. Nagahama Y., Okada T., et al. Dissociable mechanisms of attentional control within the human prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex 2001, 11(1):85-92.
48. Nicholson R., Karayanidis F., et al. ERPs dissociate the effects of switching task sets and task cues. Brain Research 2006, 1095(1):107-123.
49. Nicholson R., Karayanidis F., et al. Electrophysiological correlates of anticipatory task-switching processes. Psychophysiology 2005, 42(5):540-554.
50. Perianez J.A., Barcelo F. Updating sensory versus task representations during task-switching: insights from cognitive brain potentials in humans. Neuropsychologia 2009, 47(4):1160-1172.
51. Picton T.W., Bentin S., et al. Guidelines for using human event-related potentials to study cognition: recording standards and publication criteria. Psychophysiology 2000, 37(2):127-152.
52. Poulsen C., Luu P., et al. Dynamics of task sets: evidence from dense-array event-related potentials. Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research 2005, 24(1):133-154.
53. Rogers R.D., Monsell S. The costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1995, 124:207-231.
54. Rothermund K., Wentura D., et al. Retrieval of incidental stimulus-response associations as a source of negative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition 2005, 31(3):482-495.
55. Rubinstein J.S., Meyer D.E., et al. Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance 2001, 27(4):763-797.
56. Rushworth M.F., Passingham R.E., et al. Components of switching intentional set. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2002, 14(8):1139-1150.
57. Sakai K. Task set and prefrontal cortex. Annual Review of Neuroscience 2008, 31:219-245.
58. Schneider D.W., Anderson J.R. Asymmetric switch costs as sequential difficulty effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A (Colchester) 2010, 1-22.
59. Shepp B.E., Swartz K.B. Selective attention and the processing of integral and nonintegral dimensions: a development study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 1976, 22(1):73-85.
60. Sohn M.H., Ursu S., et al. Inaugural article: the role of prefrontal cortex and posterior parietal cortex in task switching. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 2000, 97(24):13448-13453.
61. Sternberg S. The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method. Acta Psychologica 1969, 30:276-315.
62. Sudevan P., Taylor D.A. The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance 1987, 13(1):89-103.
63. Swainson R., Cunnington R., et al. Cognitive control mechanisms revealed by ERP and fMRI: Evidence from repeated task-switching. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2003, 15(6):785-799.
64. Van Loy B., Liefooghe B., et al. Cognitive control in cued task switching with transition cues: Cue processing, task processing, and cue-task transition congruency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A (Colchester) 2010, 1-20.
65. Wong J., Leboe J.P. Distinguishing between inhibitory and episodic processing accounts of switch-cost asymmetries. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 2009, 63(1):8-23.
66. Yeung N., Monsell S. Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: the role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance 2003, 29(2):455-469.