More change in task repetition, less cost in task switching: Behavioral and event-related potential evidence

Commonalities between mind wandering and task-set switching: An event-related potential study

Previous research has established that mind wandering does not necessarily disrupt one's task-switching performance. Here we investigated the effects of mind wandering on electrophysiological signatures, measured using event-related potentials (ERPs), during a switching task. In the current study, a final sample of 22 young adults performed a task-switching paradigm while electroencephalography was continuously recorded; mind wandering was assessed via thought probes at the end of each block. Consistent with previous research, we found no significant disruptive effects of mind wandering on task-switching performance. The ERP results showed that at the posterior electrode sites (P3, Pz, and P4), P3 amplitude was higher for mind-wandering switch trials than on-task switch trials, thus opposing the typical pattern of P3 attenuation during periods of mind wandering relative to on-task episodes. Considering that increased P3 amplitude during higher-order switch trials (e.g., response rule switching) may reflect the implementation of new higher-order task sets/rules, the current findings seem to indicate similar executive control processes underlie mind wandering and task-set switching, providing further evidence in favor of a role for switching in mind wandering.

Reconceptualizing mind wandering from a switching perspective

Mind wandering is a universal phenomenon in which our attention shifts away from the task at hand toward task-unrelated thoughts. Despite it inherently involving a shift in mental set, little is known about the role of cognitive flexibility in mind wandering. In this article we consider the potential of cognitive flexibility as a mechanism for mediating and/or regulating the occurrence of mind wandering. Our review begins with a brief introduction to the prominent theories of mind wandering-the executive failure hypothesis, the decoupling hypothesis, the process-occurrence framework, and the resource-control account of sustained attention. Then, after discussing their respective merits and weaknesses, we put forward a new perspective of mind wandering focused on cognitive flexibility, which provides an account more in line with the data to date, including why older populations experience a reduction in mind wandering. After summarizing initial evidence prompting this new perspective, drawn from several mind-wandering and task-switching studies, we recommend avenues for future research aimed at further understanding the importance of cognitive flexibility in mind wandering.

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.

The role of cognitive control in the SNARC effect: A review

The spatial-numerical association of response codes (SNARC) effect, in which people respond to small numbers faster with the left hand and to large numbers faster with the right hand, is a popular topic in cognitive psychology. Some well-known theoretical accounts explaining this effect include the mental number line model, polarity correspondence principle, dual-route model, and working memory account. However, these fail to explain the finding that the size of the SNARC effect is modulated by cognitive control. Here, we propose a new account-a cognitive control-based view of the SNARC effect. This view argues that the SNARC effect is fundamentally determined by cognitive control in resolving conflicts during stimulus-response mapping. Several subcomponents of cognitive control, such as working memory, mental or task set shifting, inhibition control, and conflict adaptation, can easily modulate the SNARC effect. The cognitive control-based view can account for the flexible SNARC effect observed in diverse task situations while providing new insight into its mechanism.

Cognitive control is modulated by hierarchical complexity of task switching: An event-related potential study

The study aimed to explore the effect of hierarchical complexity on task switching. The participants (n = 36) were asked to perform a magnitude or parity judgement on digits (1-9) in the hierarchical simple or complex block. In the simple block, participants made a numerical judgement on the presented digit (1-9) in each trial, whereas in the complex block, they had to first identify whether the digit in the current trial belonged to a predefined category (e.g., whether it was an even number), then perform a numerical judgment or not respond. The behavioural results revealed a significant interaction between hierarchical complexity and transition type (repeat vs. switch), with greater switch cost in the complex than in the simple block. Event-related potentials (ERPs) locked in the cue stage did not reveal this interaction, whereas the ERPs locked in the target stage revealed this interaction during the N2 and P3 time windows, with a larger switch negativity (switch minus repeat) in the complex than in the simple block. These findings demonstrate that an increase in hierarchical complexity triggers increased reactive control in the inhibition of the old task-set and reconfiguration of the new task-set during task switching.

Electrophysiological correlates of the effect of set size on object switching in working memory

Previous studies have revealed the effect of set size (the number of activated items) on object switching in working memory, but the underlying neural mechanism remains unclear. In this study, participants were asked to first remember two (small size) or three (large size) two-digit numbers and the corresponding geometrical figures as different references for numerical comparison and then compare a series of numbers (10-99) to the reference numbers cued by different geometrical figures. The cue repeated or switched across trials. Behavioral results revealed that the switch cost was greater in the large-size condition than in the small-size condition. Event-related potential results showed that in the N2 component, an interaction was observed between set size and transition, with a significant transition effect (switch minus repeat) in the large-size condition and a non-significant transition effect in the small-size condition. The same interaction was observed in the P3 component, with a larger amplitude difference (switch minus repeat) in the large-size condition than in the small-size condition. These results suggested that when set size is increased, the effort to inhibit the irrelevant items increases, resulting in large cost of object switching in working memory.

Cognitive Neural Mechanism of Backward Inhibition and Deinhibition: A Review

Task switching is one of the typical paradigms to study cognitive control. When switching back to a recently inhibited task (e.g., “A” in an ABA sequence), the performance is often worse compared to a task without N-2 task repetitions (e.g., CBA). This difference is called the backward inhibitory effect (BI effect), which reflects the process of overcoming residual inhibition from a recently performed task (i.e., deinhibition). The neural mechanism of backward inhibition and deinhibition has received a lot of attention in the past decade. Multiple brain regions, including the frontal lobe, parietal, basal ganglia, and cerebellum, are activated during deinhibition. The event-related potentials (ERP) studies have shown that deinhibition process is reflected in the P1/N1 and P3 components, which might be related to early attention control, context updating, and response selection, respectively. Future research can use a variety of new paradigms to separate the neural mechanisms of BI and deinhibition.