Cue-type manipulation dissociates two types of task set inhibition: backward inhibition and competitor rule suppression

Do after "not to do": Deinhibition in cognitive control

In daily life, we often need to inhibit a certain behavior or thought; however, sometimes we need to remove inhibition (deinhibition). Numerous studies have examined inhibition control, but it is unclear how deinhibition functions. In Experiment 1, we adopted a modified stop-signal task in which participants were instructed to immediately stop the prepared response to a stimulus appended by an accidental signal. The results showed that when the preceding trial was a stop-signal trial and participants successfully inhibited the action to the stimulus, the reaction time (RT) for the repeated stimuli in the current trial was significantly longer than that of the switched stimuli, reflecting the cost of deinhibition. Deinhibition ability is correlated with inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility. In Experiment 2, we manipulated stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between presentation of the stimuli and the stopping signals to exclude the interference of the signal preparation effect on the deinhibition cost. These findings suggest that an individual's deinhibition ability, as a previously ignored subcomponent of cognitive control, may play an important role in human adaptive behavior.

No-go trials in task switching: effects on the task-set and task-space level

A common marker for inhibition processes in task switching are n − 2 repetition costs. The present study aimed at elucidating effects of no-go trials on n − 2 repetition costs. In contrast to the previous studies, no-go trials were associated with only one of the three tasks in the present two experiments. High n − 2 repetition costs occurred if the no-go task had to be executed in trial n − 2, irrespective of whether a response had to be withheld or not. In contrast, no n − 2 repetition costs were visible if the other two tasks were relevant in n − 2. Whereas this n − 2 effect was unaffected by whether participants could reliably exclude a no-go trial or not, effects of no-gos in trial n were determined by this knowledge. The results differ from effects of no-go trials that are not bound to a specific task. It is assumed that the present no-go variation exerted its effect not on the response level, but on the level of task sets, resulting in enhanced salience of the no-go task that leads to higher activation and, as a consequence, to stronger inhibition. The dissociation of the effects on no-gos in trials n − 2 and n as a function of foreknowledge suggests that the balance between activation and inhibition is shifted not only for single trials and tasks, but for the whole task space.

Cue response dissociates inhibitory processes: task identity information is related to backward inhibition but not to competitor rule suppression

In task switching, a conflict between competing task-sets is resolved by inhibiting the interfering task-set. Recent models have proposed a framework of the task-set as composed of two hierarchical components: abstract task identity (e.g., respond to quantity) and more concrete task rules (e.g., category-response rules mapping the categories "one" and "three" to the left and right keys, respectively). The present study explored whether task-set inhibition is the outcome of a general control process or whether it reflects multiple inhibitory processes, each targeting a different component of the competing task-set. To this end, two effects of task-set inhibition were examined: backward inhibition (BI), reflecting the suppression of a just-performed task-set that is no longer relevant; and, competitor rule suppression (CRS), reflecting the suppression of an irrelevant task-set that generates a response conflict. In two task switching experiments, each involving three tasks, we asked participants to make two responses: a cue response, indicating the identity of the relevant task (e.g., "Color"), and a target response requiring the implementation of the task rule (e.g., "Red"). The results demonstrate that BI, but not CRS, appears in cue responses, and thus, suggests that BI reflects inhibition that influences representations related to abstract task identity, rather than (just) competing responses or response rules. These results support a dissociation between inhibitory processes in task switching. The current findings also provide further evidence for a multi-component conceptualization of task-set and task-set inhibition.