Sequence effects in cued task switching modulate response preparedness and repetition priming processes |
| |
| Authors: | Sharna Jamadar Patricia T Michie Frini Karayanidis |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Functional Neuroimaging Laboratory, School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia;2. Centre for Brain and Mental Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia;3. Schizophrenia Research Institute, Sydney, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | In task‐switching paradigms, reaction time (RT) switch cost is eliminated on trials after a no‐go trial (no‐go/go sequence effect). We examined the locus of no‐go interference on task‐switching performance by comparing the event‐related potential (ERP) time course of go/go and no‐go/go sequences from cue onset to response execution. We also examined whether noninformative trials (i.e., delayed reconfiguration, no response inhibition) produce similar sequence effects. Participants switched using informative and noninformative cues ( Experiment 2 ) intermixed with no‐go trials ( Experiment 1 ). Repeat RT was slower for both no‐go/informative (pNG/I) and noninformative/informative (pNI/I) than informative/informative sequences. ERPs linked to anticipatory preparation showed no effect of trial sequence. ERPs indicated that pNG/I sequences reduce response readiness whereas pNI/I sequences reduce repetition benefit for repeat trials. Implications for task‐switching models are discussed. |
| |
| Keywords: | Normal volunteers EEG/ERP Cognition |
|
|
