Switching, plasticity, and prediction in a saccadic task-switch paradigm

Several cognitive processes are involved in task-switching. Using a prosaccade/antisaccade paradigm, we manipulated both the interval available for preparation between the cue and the target and the predictability of trial sequences, to isolate the contributions of foreknowledge, an active switching (reconfiguration) process, and passive inhibitory effects persisting from the prior trial. We tested 15 subjects with both a random and a regularly alternating trial sequence. Half of the trials had a short cue–target interval of 200 ms, and half a longer cue–target interval of 2,000 ms. When there was only a short preparatory interval, switching increased the latencies for both prosaccades and antisaccades. With a long preparatory interval, switching was associated with a smaller latency increase for prosaccades and, importantly, a paradoxical reduction in latency for antisaccades. Foreknowledge of a predictable sequence did not allow subjects to reduce switch costs in the manner that a long preparatory cue–target interval did. In the trials with short preparatory intervals, the effects on latency attributable to active reconfiguration processes were similar for prosaccades and antisaccades. We propose a model in which the passive inhibitory effects that persist from the prior saccadic trial are due not to task-set inertia, in which one task-set inhibits the opposite task-set, but to inhibition of the saccadic response-system by the antisaccade task, to account for the paradoxical set-switch benefit for antisaccades at long cue–target intervals. Our findings regarding foreknowledge show that previous studies used to support task-set inertia may have conflated the effects of both active reconfiguration and passive inhibitory processes on latency. While our model of response-system plasticity can explain a number of effects of dominance asymmetry in switching, other models fail to account for the paradoxical set-switch benefit for antisaccades.

[1]  P. E. Hallett,et al.  Primary and secondary saccades to goals defined by instructions , 1978, Vision Research.

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

[3]  Raymond M. Klein,et al.  The Magnitude of the Fixation Offset Effect with Endogenously and Exogenously Controlled Saccades , 1996, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[4]  N. Meiran.  Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. , 1996 .

[5]  D. Munoz,et al.  Saccadic Probability Influences Motor Preparation Signals and Time to Saccadic Initiation , 1998, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[6]  D P Munoz,et al.  Role of Primate Superior Colliculus in Preparation and Execution of Anti-Saccades and Pro-Saccades , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[7]  N. Meiran.  Modeling cognitive control in task-switching , 2000, Psychological research.

[8]  R De Jong,et al.  An intention-activation account of residual switch costs , 2000 .

[9]  A. Allport,et al.  Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs” , 2000, Psychological research.

[10]  D. Munoz,et al.  t Immediate Neural Plasticity Shapes Motor Performance , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[11]  D P Munoz,et al.  Neuronal Correlates for Preparatory Set Associated with Pro-Saccades and Anti-Saccades in the Primate Frontal Eye Field , 2000, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[12]  S Monsell,et al.  Reconfiguration of task-set: Is it easier to switch to the weaker task? , 2000, Psychological research.

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

[14]  J. Driver,et al.  Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII , 2000 .

[15]  F. Tornay,et al.  A More Complete Task-Set Reconfiguration in Random than in Predictable Task Switch , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[16]  J R Anderson,et al.  Task preparation and task repetition: two-component model of task switching. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[17]  Dara S. Manoach,et al.  Antisaccades and task-switching: interactions in controlled processing , 2002, Experimental Brain Research.

[18]  Stephen Monsell,et al.  Residual costs in task switching: Testing the failure-to-engage hypothesis , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[19]  Mariya V. Cherkasova,et al.  Schizophrenic subjects show deficient inhibition but intact task switching on saccadic tasks , 2002, Biological Psychiatry.

[20]  Amelia R Hunt,et al.  Eliminating the cost of task set reconfiguration , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[21]  Jillian H. Fecteau,et al.  Exploring the consequences of the previous trial , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[22]  N. Yeung,et al.  Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: the role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  Jillian H. Fecteau,et al.  Sensory biases produce alternation advantage found in sequential saccadic eye movement tasks , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[24]  Kristen A. Lindgren,et al.  Deficient saccadic inhibition in Asperger’s disorder and the social-emotional processing disorder , 2004, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

[25]  D. Munoz,et al.  Look away: the anti-saccade task and the voluntary control of eye movement , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[26]  P. E. Hallett,et al.  The differentiation of visually guided and anticipatory saccades in gap and overlap paradigms , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[27]  Mariya V. Cherkasova,et al.  What is perseverated in schizophrenia? Evidence of abnormal response plasticity in the saccadic system. , 2005, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[28]  M. Schmitter-Edgecombe,et al.  Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks following severe closed-head injury. , 2006, Neuropsychology.