An investigation of the neural correlates of attention and effector switching using ERPs

Neural correlates of response-effector switching using event-related potentials

“…Please note, the current study observed a reduced P3b, rather than an increased P3b as reported by Tieges et al (2007), which will be discussed in detail later. On the contrary, the current results did not seem to accord with what was reported by West et al (2009) in which independent neural systems were involved -the attention shifting was associated with a slow positive wave at the parietal electrode sites (650 ms following cue onset) that followed the P3b (300-500 ms following cue onset), but the effector shift involved a readiness potential recorded at the central electrode sites. 6 Regarding the current results in relation to the fMRI study by Philipp et al (2013), the current ERP study failed to provide direct evidence in showing a two-stage process of task-set components in task switching, in which the activation of the prefrontal cortex is related to the updating of an abstract task representation (in terms of stimulus categorization) and subsequently influences the activation of specific response-related action rules stored in parietal cortex (see also Brass et al, 2005;Rubinstein et al, 2001 for a similar idea of a two-stage model of task switching).…”

“…Therefore, the current results, including both behavioral and ERP data, along with the previous findings reported by Tieges et al (2007) and West et al (2009), support the notion proposed by Philipp and Koch (2011) that switching between two response effectors (vocal vs. manual, vocal vs. foot, or manual vs. foot) is not a purely motor-related process, but can be also considered as a form of cognitive-task shift. In addition, converging the results of the current two experiments, the switch-related processes for the response-effector shift can be generalized to different judgment tasks, including a same-match-to-sample task and a categorical-judgment task.…”

“…To our knowledge, only two ERP studies (Tieges et al, 2007;West, Bailey, & Langley, 2009) and one fMRI study (Philipp, Weidner, Koch, & Fink, 2013) directly contrasted task-rule and effector shifts. However, although these two ERP studies consistently showed that the response-effector shift, similar to other forms of cognitive-task shifts, also incurred cue-locked and stimulus-locked switch-related ERP components, yet they did not reach consensus on whether common or distinct underlying mechanisms of preparation control processes (reflected on cue-locked ERPs) were associated with task-rule vs. effector shifts.…”

Task Switching Processes

“…Although the switch positivity is elicited under a broad range of task conditions, the fact that its size, duration, and latency are modulated by specific task parameters (Astle et al, 2008;West et al, 2009) is inconsistent with an all-or-none preparation process. Moreover, both RT switch cost (Brown, Lehmann, & Poboka, 2006;De Jong, 2000;Karayanidis, Provost, Brown, Paton, & Heathcote, 2011) and switch-positivity amplitude (Elchlepp et al, 2012;Jost, Mayr, & Rosler, 2008;Karayanidis, Provost, Brown, Paton, & Heathcote, 2011;Lavric, Mizon, & Monsell, 2008) vary as a function of RT.…”

“…This switch positivity is evident in a range of switching paradigms, including WCST variants (Barcelo, Munoz-Cespedes, Pozo, & Rubia, 2000), alternating runs, and cued trials paradigms (Karayanidis, Coltheart, Michie, & Murphy, 2003;Nicholson et al, 2005). The switch positivity has been measured in a range of switching contexts, for example, switching verbal/ spatial tasks (Miniussi, Marzi, & Nobre, 2005), visual/auditory tasks (Kieffaber & Hetrick, 2005), and stimulus/response sets (Astle, Nixon, Jackson, & Jackson, 2012;Rushworth, Passingham, & Nobre, 2002;West, Bailey, & Langley, 2009). The switch positivity is elicited in anticipation of bivalent and univalent targets (Figure 1(b); Elchlepp, Lavric, Mizon, & Monsell, 2012;Karayanidis et al, 2003;Kieffaber & Hetrick, 2005;Poulsen, Luu, Davey, & Tucker, 2005) and response sets (Figure 1(b); Astle, Jackson, & Swainson, 2008;Mueller, Swainson, & Jackson, 2007).…”