Electrophysiological correlates of anticipatory task‐switching processes

Nicholson, Rebecca; Karayanidis, Frini; Poboka, Dane; Heathcote, Andrew; Michie, Patricia T.

doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00350.x

Cited by 157 publications

(274 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(80 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

229

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with the claim that the task-cuing paradigm entails task switching in addition to cue switching, a number of recent ERP studies using the 2: I cue-to-task mapping procedure (e.g., Jost et aI., 2008;Lavric et aI., 2008;Nicholson et aI., 2006) showed that the larger parietal positivity that is usually observed for switch trials compared with repetition trials during the prepa-ratory interval (e.g., Karayanidis et aI., 2003;Miniussi, Marzi, & Nobre, 2005;Nicholson, Karayanidis, Poboka, Heathcote, & Michie, 2005;Wylie, Javitt, & Foxe, 2003) primarily refers to task switches rather than cue switches. Nicholson et al (2006) used two different cues per task, a color cue and a form cue, to indicate the required task (magnitude or parity judgment).…”

Section: Preparation As Interaction Of Cue Encoding and Memory Retrievalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Control and interference in task switching—A review.

Kiesel¹,

Steinhauser²,

Wendt³

et al. 2010

Psychological Bulletin

1,327

1,257

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The task-switching paradigm offers enormous possibilities to study cognitive control as well as task interference. The current review provides an overview of recent research on both topics. First, we review different experimental approaches to task switching, such as comparing mixed-task blocks with singletask blocks, predictable task-switching and task-cuing paradigms, intermittent instructions, and voluntary task selection. In the 2nd part, we discuss findings on preparatory control mechanisms in task switching and theoretical accounts of task preparation. We consider preparation processes in two-stage models, consider preparation as an all-or-none process, address the question of whether preparation is switchspecific, reflect on preparation as interaction of cue encoding and memory retrieval, and discuss the impact of verbal mediation on preparation. In the 3rd part, we turn to interference phenomena in task switching. We consider proactive interference of tasks and inhibition of recently performed tasks indicated by asymmetrical switch costs and n-2 task-repetition costs. We discuss stimulus-based interference as a result of stimulus-based response activation and stimulus-based task activation, and response-based interference because of applying bivalent rather than univalent responses, response repetition effects, and carryover of response selection and execution. In the 4th and final part, we mention possible future research fields.Keywords: task switching, cognitive control, interference Human behavior is highly adaptive and flexible in response to changing environmental demands. This flexibility requires complex cognitive control processes, which allow humans to not only respond reactively but also to behave in a more proactive way to achieve goals and to perform tasks. The exploration of the proAndrea Kiesel, Department of Psychology, University of Wiirzburg, Wiirzburg, Germany; Marco Steinhauser, Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany; Mike Wendt, Experimental Psychology Unit, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany; Michael Falkenstein, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, TU Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany; Kerstin Jost, Department of Psychology, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany, and Department of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; Andrea M. Philipp and Iring Koch, Department of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University.This article was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) in the context of the priority program "Executive Functions" (Grants Fa 211115-1,2; Ho 1301/8-1,2,3; Hu 432/8-1,2,3; KI 488/6-1,2,3; Ko 2045/4-1,2,3; and Ro 529/17-1,2,3). We thank Stephen Monsell for very helpful comments on earlier versions of the article.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrea Kiesel, Department of Psychology, University of Wiirzburg, Rontgenring 11, 97070 Wiirzburg, Germany, or to Iring Koch, Lehrstuhl fur Psycholo!,>ie I, RWTH Aachen University, Jiigerstrasse 17-19,52056 Aachen, Germany. ...

show abstract

Section: Preparation As Interaction Of Cue Encoding and Memory Retrievalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Control and interference in task switching—A review.

Kiesel¹,

Steinhauser²,

Wendt³

et al. 2010

Psychological Bulletin

1,327

1,257

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Without the subtraction procedure, amplitudes for fast and slow trials already differed substantially before and following signal onset. For the quantification of N2 amplitudes we therefore baseline corrected amplitudes to the interval from 50 ms before to 50 ms after signal onset 5 (see e.g., Karayanidis, Coltheart, Michie & Murphy, 2003;Nicholson, Karayanidis, Bumak, Poboka & Michie, 2006;Nicholson, Karayanidis, Poboka, Heathcote & Michie, 2005, for a similar approach). P3 amplitudes, averaged over electrodes FCz, Cz and Pz, were quantified as the N2 to P3 difference.…”

Section: Eeg/erps the Electroencephalogram (Eeg) Was Acquired Using 64mentioning

confidence: 99%

How to withhold or replace a prepotent response: An analysis of the underlying control processes and their temporal dynamics

Elchlepp

Verbruggen

2017

Biological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, the dynamics of this frontoparietal network have also been studied using ERPs and magnetoencephalographic (MEG) recordings, which revealed an amplitude enhancement of a frontoparietal P3-like component in response to signals indicating the need of a task switch (Barceló, Periañez, & Knight, 2002;Furumoto, 1991;Periáñez et al, 2004;Stuss & Picton, 1978;Watson, Azizian, & Squires, 2006). Accordingly, many authors have interpreted the switch-P3 enhancement in the ERPs as the neural signature of a cognitive control mechanism required for task set reconfiguration during task switching (Brass, Ullsperger, Knoesche, von Cramon, & Phillips, 2005;Kieffaber & Hetrick, 2005;Kopp, Tabeling, Moschner, & Wessel, 2006;Lai & Mangels, 2007;Nicholson, Karayanidis, Poboka, Heathcote, & Michie, 2005;Rushworth, Passingham, & Nobre, 2002;Slagter, Kok, Mol, Talsma, & Kenemans, 2005;Swainson, Jackson, & Jackson, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brain oscillatory activity associated with task switching and feedback processing

Cunillera

Fuentemilla

Periáñez

et al. 2011

Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci

102

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we sought to dissociate eventrelated potentials (ERPs) and the oscillatory activity associated with signals indicating feedback about performance (outcome-based behavioral adjustment) and the signals indicating the need to change or maintain a task set (rule-based behavioral adjustment). With this purpose in mind, we noninvasively recorded electroencephalographic signals, using a modified version of the Wisconsin card sorting task, in which feedback processing and task switching could be studied separately. A similar late positive component was observed for the switch and correct feedback signals on the first trials of a series, but feedbackrelated negativity was observed only for incorrect feedback. Moreover, whereas theta power showed a significant increase after a switch cue and after the first positive feedback of a new series, a selective frontal beta-gamma increase was observed exclusively in the first positive feedback (i.e., after the selection of the new rule). Importantly, for the switch cue, beta-alpha activity was suppressed rather than increased. This clear dissociation between the cue and feedback stimuli in task switching emphasizes the need to accurately study brain oscillatory activity to disentangle the role of different cognitive control processes.

show abstract

Electrophysiological correlates of anticipatory task‐switching processes

Cited by 157 publications

References 38 publications

Control and interference in task switching—A review.

Control and interference in task switching—A review.

How to withhold or replace a prepotent response: An analysis of the underlying control processes and their temporal dynamics

Brain oscillatory activity associated with task switching and feedback processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About