After-effects of goal shifting and response inhibition: A comparison of the stop-change and dual-task paradigms

In the present study, we tested three hypotheses that account for after-effects of response inhibition and goal shifting: the goal-shifting hypothesis, the reaction time (RT) adjustment hypothesis, and the stimulus–goal association hypothesis. To distinguish between the hypotheses, we examined performance in the stop-change paradigm and the dual-task paradigm. In the stop-change paradigm, we found that responding on no-signal trials slowed down when a stop-change signal was presented on the previous trial. Similarly, in the dual-task paradigm, we found that responding on no-signal trials slowed down when a dual-task signal was presented on the previous trial. However, after-effects of unsuccessful inhibition or dual-task performance were observed only when the stimulus of the previous trial was repeated. These results are consistent with stimulus–goal association hypothesis, which assumes that the stimulus is associated with the different task goals on signal trials; when the stimulus is repeated, the tasks goal are retrieved, and interference occurs.

[1]  N. Meiran,et al.  Component Processes in Task Switching , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  U. Mayr,et al.  Sticky rules: integration between abstract rules and specific actions. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[3]  G. Logan.  On the ability to inhibit thought and action , 1984 .

[4]  A. Allport,et al.  Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[5]  Frederick Verbruggen,et al.  Tscope: A C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS Windows platform , 2006, Behavior research methods.

[6]  D. Meyer,et al.  Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  Frederick Verbruggen,et al.  Long-term aftereffects of response inhibition: memory retrieval, task goals, and cognitive control. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  B. Hommel,et al.  Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus–task bindings in task-shift costs , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[9]  David E. Kieras,et al.  A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. , 1997 .

[10]  A. Vandierendonck,et al.  The interaction between stop signal inhibition and distractor interference in the flanker and Stroop task. , 2004, Acta psychologica.

[11]  Frederick Verbruggen,et al.  How to Stop and Change a Response: the Role of Goal Activation in Multitasking , 2022 .

[12]  S. Tipper,et al.  Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 1948, Nature.

[13]  Martina Rieger,et al.  Inhibitory after‐effects in the stop signal paradigm , 1999 .

[14]  D. Alan Allport,et al.  SHIFTING INTENTIONAL SET - EXPLORING THE DYNAMIC CONTROL OF TASKS , 1994 .

[15]  G. Logan.  Toward an instance theory of automatization. , 1988 .

[16]  G. Logan.  American Psychological Association, Inc.>n the Ability to Inhibit Simple Thoughts and Actions: I. Stop-Signal Studies of Decision and Memory , 2022 .

[17]  Ronald Hübner,et al.  Response execution, selection, or activation: What is sufficient for response-related repetition effects under task shifting? , 2006, Psychological research.

[18]  R. D. Gordon,et al.  Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. , 2001, Psychological review.

[19]  Frederick Verbruggen,et al.  Short-term aftereffects of response inhibition: repetition priming or between-trial control adjustments? , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.