Training and Transfer of Cue Updating in Older Adults Is Limited: Evidence From Behavioral and Neuronal Data

Relationship Between the Parietal Cortex and Task Switching: Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Combined with an Event-related Potential Study

Task switching refers to a set of cognitive processes involved in shifting attention from one task to another. In recent years, researchers have applied transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to investigate the causal relationship between the parietal cortex and task switching. However, results from available studies are highly inconsistent. This may be due to the unclear understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Therefore, the current study utilized event-related potential (ERP) analysis to investigate the modulatory effects of tDCS on task-switching processes. Twenty-four subjects were recruited to perform both predictable and unpredictable parity/magnitude tasks under anodal (RA) and sham conditions. The results showed no significant changes in behavioral performance. However, marked tDCS-induced ERP changes were observed. Specifically, for the predictable task switching, compared with the sham condition, the target-N2 component occurred significantly earlier for switch trials than repeat trials under the RA condition in males, while no difference was found in females. For unpredictable task switching, under the sham condition, the P2 peak was significantly larger for switch trials compared with repeat trials, whereas this difference was not observed under the RA condition. These results indicated the causal relationship between the right parietal cortex and exogenous adjustment processes involved in task switching. Moreover, anodal tDCS over the right parietal cortex may lead to the manifestation of gender differences.

Proactive and reactive control differ between task switching and response rule switching: Event-related potential evidence

The distinction between task-switching (T-switch) and response-rule switching (RR-switch) has been reported in previous studies. However, it is unclear whether the neural correlates of proactive and reactive control differ between T-switch and RR-switch. In this study, a modified cue-target task was adopted. When the cue in the current trial differed from that in the preceding trial in shape (or color), the participants had to perform a T-switch (or RR-switch). Otherwise, they performed the same task following the same response rule. The behavioral results showed that the switch cost was greater for the RR-switch than for the T-switch. The event-related potential results indicated that (1) for cues, the switch-positivity in the late positive component (LPC) (500-800 ms) was more enhanced for the RR-switch than for the T-switch over the central to parietal regions, reflecting increased proactive control for the RR-switch compared with the T-switch; (2) for targets, the P3 amplitude was more attenuated in the RR-switch than the T-switch over the central and parietal regions, reflecting increased reactive control for the RR-switch; and (3) under the T-switch, the switch-positivity in the cue-LPC was negatively correlated with accuracy cost, while under the RR-switch, the switch negativity in the target-P3 was positively correlated with the reaction time cost. These findings suggest that similar proactive and reactive control are recruited in the T-switch and RR-switch, whereas cognitive control efforts clearly differ between them, perhaps due to different sub-processes.