Effects of anxiety on task switching: Evidence from the mixed antisaccade task

Abstract

There is behavioral evidence to show that anxiety is associated with an attentional bias for threat-related material (see Bar-Haim, Lamy, Pergamin, BakermansKranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007, for a review). Recent neuroimaging work has also shown that anxiety selectively facilitates early processing of threat and enhances distractibility to task-irrelevant stimuli. According to Bishop (2007; see also Bishop, Duncan, Brett, & Lawrence, 2004), anxiety is associated with enhanced amygdala activation and reduced recruitment of prefrontal cortical areas (especially the dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex [DLPFC] and the ventral lateral prefrontal cortex [VLPFC]) that are heavily involved in top-down regulation of attention, especially when attentional focus is required for efficient task performance. Both behavioral and neuroimaging work has shown that anxiety is associated with adverse effects on cognitive performance, especially on tasks that require attentional focus. In an attempt to explain the role of attentional control in anxiety and cognitive performance, the attentional control theory of anxiety was put forward by Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, and Calvo (2007).The attentional control theory (Eysenck et al., 2007) is a major development of processing efficiency theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992). Based on Baddeley's (1986; see also Derryberry & Reed, 2002) working memory model, the theory claims that anxiety disrupts the balance b between what Corbetta and Shulman (2002) distinguished as the stimulus-driven (involved in bottom-up control, influenced by salient environmental stimuli) and the goaldirected (involved in top-down control, influenced by the current goal) systems. These two systems are generally thought to interact in their functioning (Pashler, Johnston, & Ruthruff, 2001), but anxiety is believed to increase the influence of the stimulus-driven system over the goaldirected processes, reducing attentional control.Predictions of the attentional control theory are based on a fundamental distinction by the processing efficiency theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992) between performance ef-f f fectiveness and performance efficiency. Effectiveness refers to an individual's competence in doing a task (measured by f response accuracy), and efficiency refers to the amount of processing resources invested in doing the task (measured by response latency). The theory predicts that anxiety has a greater impact on performance efficiency of tasks requiring the inhibition ("one's ability to deliberately inhibit dominant, automatic, or prepotent responses when necessary"; Miyake et al., 2000, p. 57) and/or the shifting d ("shifting back and g forth between multiple tasks"; Miyake et al., 2000, p. 55) functions of the central executive. In inhibition, attentional d control prevents attentional resources from being allocated to task-irrelevant stimuli, and in shifting, attentional control is used in a positive way to allocate attentional resources to execute the task relevant to the current goal.A general assumption of the atten...

Effects of state anxiety on performance using a task-switching paradigm: An investigation of attentional control theory

“…There is much previous empirical support for the predicted adverse effects of anxiety on negative attentional control (see ). However, with the exception of Ansari et al (2008), no published studies have considered the predicted effects of anxiety on positive attentional control. Using There was an interaction between cuing and state anxiety [F(1,45) There was a three-way interaction of complexity, task type, and state anxiety [F(1,45) 4.11, p .04].…”

“…There is hardly any published research on the effects of anxiety on the shifting function. However, Ansari, Derakshan, and Richards (2008), using a mixed antisaccade task, found that highanxious individuals did not show the commonly found switch benefit that results from alternating between antiand prosaccade trials, suggesting that anxiety impaired the shifting function.…”

The Effects of High Pressure on the Point of No Return in Simulated Penalty Kicks

“…Eysenck et al (2007) argue that the time to respond is an important measure for this efficiency: the more time spent to achieve similar levels of performance accuracy, the less efficient the goal-driven system is. It has been reported for a variety of cognitive tasks that in high-pressure situations performance accuracy can be maintained, but with increased response times relative to low-pressure situations (e.g., Eysenck et al, 2007;Ansari, Derakshan, & Richards, 2008;Derakshan & Eysenck, 2009), although the converse sometimes also occurs: response times are maintained, but accuracy decreases (e.g., Beilock, Kulp, Holt, & Carr, 2004). For motor tasks, high-pressure leads the goal-driven system to invoke a step-by-step control mode, making performance not only significantly slower as in cognitive tasks, but also more prone to error (e.g., Beilock, Bertenthal, McCoy, & Carr, 2004;Masters & Maxwell, 2008).…”

Anxiety, movement kinematics, and visual attention in elite-level performers.

“…This process results in reduced attentional control and impairment of the inhibition and shifting functions. The inhibition function involves using attentional control in a restraining way to prevent attentional resources being allocated to taskirrelevant stimuli and response (Miyake et al, 2000;Friedman & Miyake, 2004) whereas, the shifting function was described as a positive way to shift the allocation of attention to remain on task-relevant stimuli (Ansari, Derakshan, & Richards, 2008). Eysenck et al (2007) concluded that anxiety may not impair performance effectiveness when it leads to the use of compensatory strategies such as enhanced effort or increased use of processing resources.…”