A Common Principle of Conflict Resolution in Single and Dual-Task Settings
description
Transcript of A Common Principle of Conflict Resolution in Single and Dual-Task Settings
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
A Common Principle of Conflict Resolution in Single and Dual-Task
Settings
Sander A. LosVrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
The sign of orro
1.Zorro appears at the critical moment2.Zorro’s dual strike
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
1.Zorro appears at the critical moment
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Variable-foreperiod design
S1 S2 R
Foreperiod (FP) RT
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Variable-foreperiod design
S1
Time
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Variable-foreperiod design
S1
Time
Critical moments
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Variable-foreperiod design
S1
Time
S2
Imperative moment
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Variable-foreperiod design
Foreperiod on trial n (s)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Rea
ctio
n tim
e (m
s)
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
(Zahn et al., 1963)
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Variable-foreperiod design
(Zahn et al., 1963)
Foreperiod on trial n (s)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Rea
ctio
n tim
e (m
s)
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
FPn - 1: 1.0 s
FPn - 1: 2.0 s
FPn - 1: 4.0 s
FPn - 1: 7.0 s
FPn - 1: 15.0 s
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Accounts
Activationon trial n
Sta
te o
f P
repa
ratio
n
Inhibitionon trial n - 1
Imperative momenton trial n - 1
Activation view Inhibition view
Imperative momenton trial n - 1
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
S1
Suppose: S2 appeared at the 2nd critical moment on trial n - 1
S2 on trial n - 1time
Activation view: re-preparation
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
S1
Suppose: S2 appeared at the 2nd critical moment on trial n - 1
=> Expect S2 at 2nd critical moment on trial n
Expectancy trial n time
Activation view: re-preparation
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
S1
Suppose: S2 appeared at the 2nd critical moment on trial n - 1
=> Expect S2 at 2nd critical moment on trial n
S2 on trial ntime
• S2 occurs before expected moment: RT = long
Activation view: re-preparation
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
S1
Suppose: S2 appeared at the 2nd critical moment on trial n - 1
=> Expect S2 at 2nd critical moment on trial n
S2 on trial ntime
• S2 occurs before expected moment: RT = long• S2 occurs at the expected moment: RT = short
Activation view: re-preparation
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
S1
Suppose: S2 appeared at the 2nd critical moment on trial n - 1
=> Expect S2 at 2nd critical moment on trial n
S2 on trial ntime
• S2 occurs before expected moment: RT = long• S2 occurs at the expected moment: RT = short• S2 occurs beyond the expected moment: RT = short!
repreparation
Activation view: re-preparation
(e.g., Niemi & Näätänen, 1981)
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Critical moments
Sta
te o
f co
nditi
onin
g
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
S1
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Bypassing the first critical moment:
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Bypassing the first critical moment: Extinction
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Bypassing the first critical moment: Extinction
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Bypassing the first critical moment: Extinction
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Bypassing the first critical moment: Extinction
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Bypassing the first critical moment: Extinction
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Bypassing the second critical moment:
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Bypassing the second critical moment: Extinction
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Bypassing the second critical moment: Extinction
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Bypassing the second critical moment: Extinction
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Bypassing the second critical moment: Extinction
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Bypassing the second critical moment: Extinction
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
S2The imperative moment:
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning real time
The imperative moment: Reinforcement
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
SOAn vs SOAn SOAn vs Activation
Sta
te o
f con
ditio
ning
State of conditioning prior to trial n + 1
Note: state of conditioning associated with the last critical moment remains unchanged.
Inhibition view: Trace conditioning
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Accounts
Activationon trial n
Sta
te o
f P
repa
ratio
n
Inhibitionon trial n - 1
Imperative momenton trial n - 1
Activation view Inhibition view
Imperative momenton trial n - 1
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Experiment:Probing the inhibitory process
• Go / no-go task with respect to S2 in variable FP design
• Evidence for response inhibition on no-go trials
• After a no-go trial, extinction replaces reinforcement at the imperative moment
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Design
Ready
0 ms, S1
1000 ms, S1 off: start FP
Response
Time
Conditions:1. 50% “ready” go trials
1300 or 2200 ms, S2: Go
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Design
Ready
0 ms, S1
1000 ms, S1 off: start FP
No Response
Time
Conditions:1. 50% “ready” go trials2. 25% “ready” no-go trials
1300 or 2200 ms, S2: NoGo
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Design
Relax
0 ms, S1
1000 ms, S1 off: start FP
No Response
Time
Conditions:1. 50% “ready” go trials2. 25% “ready” no-go trials3. 25% “relax” no-go trials
1300 or 2200 ms, S2: NoGo
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
PredictionsN - 1 = “ready” go: extinction only when bypassing the critical moment
FP on trail n: 1200 ms
300 1200
FP on trial n: 300 ms
300 1200
Rea
ctio
n T
ime
(ms)
FP_n-1 vs FP_n-1
FP_n-1 vs pred_go_k: 300.00
FP on trial n - 1 (ms)
trial n - 1:go
trial n - 1:
"ready": go
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
PredictionsN - 1 = “ready” no-go: extinction both when bypassing the critical moment and at the imperative moment
FP on trail n: 1200 ms
300 1200
FP on trial n: 300 ms
300 1200
Rea
ctio
n T
ime
(ms)
FP_n-1 vs FP_n-1 FP_n-1 vs pred_go_k
FP_n-1 vs pred_nogo_k_ten
FP on trial n - 1 (ms)
trial n - 1:go
trial n - 1:
"ready": go
"ready": no-go
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
PredictionsN - 1 = “relax” no-go: extinction neither when bypassing the critical moment nor at the imperative moment
FP on trail n: 1200 ms
300 1200
FP on trial n: 300 ms
300 1200
Rea
ctio
n T
ime
(ms)
FP_n-1 vs FP_n-1 FP_n-1 vs pred_go_k
FP_n-1 vs pred_nogo_k_ten
FP_n-1 vs pred_nogo_k_rel
FP on trial n - 1 (ms)
trial n - 1:go
trial n - 1:
"ready": go
"ready": no-go
"relax": no-go
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Findings
FP on trial n is long: confirms prediction
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Findings
FP on trail n: 1200 ms
300 1200
FP on trial n: 300 ms
300 1200
Rea
ctio
n T
ime
(ms)
290
300
310
320
330
340
FP_n-1 vs FP_n-1
FP_n-1 vs go_k FP_n-1 vs nogo_k_ten FP_n-1 vs nogo_k_rel
FP on trial n - 1 (ms)
trial n - 1:go
trial n - 1:
"ready": go
"ready": no-go
"relax": no-go
FP on trial n = short: Zorro appears (... but is a bit off target)
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Conclusions (1)
Consistent with the trace conditioning account, response inhibition on trial n - 1 affects RT on trial n.
Sta
te o
f pr
epar
atio
n
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Conclusions (2)
Response inhibition accounts directly for sequential effects of foreperiod.
Foreperiod on trial n (s)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Rea
ctio
n tim
e (m
s)
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
FPn - 1: 1.0 s
FPn - 1: 2.0 s
FPn - 1: 4.0 s
FPn - 1: 7.0 s
FPn - 1: 15.0 s
(Zahn et al., 1963)
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Conclusions (3)
Response inhibition accounts indirectly for the classical FP – RT function.
Foreperiod on trial n (s)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Rea
ctio
n tim
e (m
s)
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
(Zahn et al., 1963)
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Common themes in Single- and Dual-Task Control
• Switching between levels of an independent variable
• Result: asymmetric switch costs
• Involvement of inhibitory processing
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
2. Zorro’s dual strike
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Task switch paradigm
A A B B B B A B A A …...
Nonswitch: task set on trial n = task set on trial n - 1
Switch: task set on trial n task set on trial n - 1
Participants apply task sets A and B on different trials, as specified by a preceding cue:
Typical findings:• Switch costs: RTnonswitch < RTswitch• Residual switch costs: switch costs when the cue-target interval is relatively long (e.g., exceeding 1,000 ms).
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Task switch paradigm
Two questions:
1. Origin of switch costs: where do switch costs come from?
2. Control of switch costs: Can switch costs be reduced to zero by endogenous means during a long preparatory interval?
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Origin of Switch Costs
Mayr & Keele (2000): Three task sets: A, B, C
C B AA B A
Finding: RTCBA < RTABA
“Backward inhibition”: on trial n - 1 participants inhibit the task set performed on trial n - 2, leading to costs on trial n if the task set on trial n is the same as on trial n - 2.
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Origin of Switch Costs
When does backward inhibition come into play?
1. During the Cue - Target interval
2. After the onset of the target stimulus
switch costs are caused by endogenous task set preparation on trial n - 1.
switch costs are caused by task set competition on trial n - 1.
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Schuch & Koch, 2003
Combined task switch, go / no-go design. A tone was presented simultaneously with the target:• High tone (75%): Go: Apply task set• Low tone (25%): No-go: Don’t apply task set
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Schuch & Koch, 2003
2 R n
R n – 1
Tone + Target
Cue
600 ms
100 or 1,000 ms
Cue: Square (odd / even) ordiamond (higher / lower 5)CTI: 100 or 1,000 msTarget: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9Tone: high (go, 75%)or low (no-go, 25%)
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Schuch & Koch, 2003
Trial Type
repeat switch
Rea
ctio
n T
ime
(ms)
750
800
850
900
950
Responsen - 1: go
Responsen - 1: no-go
Main Finding:Switch costs were only observed after a go trial, not after a no-go trial.
Conclusion:Switch costs require task-set application. Switch costs result from task-set competition.
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Schuch & Koch, 2003
Problem:Given that no task-set competition occurred on no-go trials, why was RT relatively long after a no-go trial?
Trial Type
repeat switch
Rea
ctio
n T
ime
(ms)
750
800
850
900
950
Responsen - 1: go, observed
Responsen - 1: no-go, observed
Responsen - 1: no-go, predicted
Proposed solution:A no-gon – 1 trial prolongs another stage (or other stages) on trial n.
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Schuch & Koch, 2003
Response selection Stage X
Trial Type Responsen - 1
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Present study
Response selection Stage X
Trial Type Responsen - 1Factor
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Present study
Response selectionDecision whether to respond
Trial Type Responsen - 1TTI
Hypothesis: stage X represents a decision-whether-to-respond stage, selectively influenced by the Tone – Target Interval (TTI).
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Design
Odd – Even2
Rn
Rn - 1
Odd - Even Target (+ Tone)
Cue (+ Tone)
600 ms
1,000 ms
Cue: odd - even or high - lowTTI: 0 or 1,000 msTarget: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9Tone: high (go, 75%)or low (no-go, 25%)
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Results
(Los & Van der Burg, in preparation)
Trial Type
repeat switch
Re
act
ion
Tim
e (
ms)
550
600
650
700
750
800
go 0 go 1,000
Responsen - 1 TTIn (ms)
• large effect of TTI
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Results
(Los & Van der Burg, in preparation)
Trial Type
repeat switch
Re
act
ion
Tim
e (
ms)
550
600
650
700
750
800
go 0 go 1,000 no-go 0
Responsen - 1 TTIn (ms)
• large effect of TTI
• short TTI, responsen - 1: no-go - no switch costs - RT is relatively long
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Results
(Los & Van der Burg, in preparation)
Trial Type
repeat switch
Re
act
ion
Tim
e (
ms)
550
600
650
700
750
800
go 0 go 1,000 no-go 0 no-go 1,000
Responsen - 1 TTIn (ms)
• large effect of TTI
• short TTI, responsen - 1: no-go - no switch costs - RT is relatively long
• long TTI , responsen - 1: no-go - no switch costs - RT is relatively fast
Zorro’s dual strike…..!?
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Conclusions
(Los & Van der Burg, in preparation)
Response selectionDecision whetherto respond
Trial Type Responsen - 1 TTI
1. Confirmation the additional stage hypothesis
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Conclusions
Response selectionDecision whetherto respond
Trial Type Responsen - 1 TTI
1. Confirmation the additional stage hypothesis2. Residual switch costs are caused by task set competition
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
General Conclusions
• Common principles may govern task control in single and dual-task settings.
• inhibitory control is exerted whenever conflicting responses are simultaneously activated.
• consequences of inhibition carry over from one trial to the next.
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
The sign of orro
Thank you!
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Results
(Los & Van der Burg, in preparation)
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Conclusions
Response selection
“whether”decision
Trial Type
Responsen - 1
TTIn
1. Confirmation the additional stage hypothesis.
TTIn - 1
Motorprocessing
vrije Universiteit amsterdamCognitieve Psychologie
Conclusions
Response selection
“whether”decision
Trial Type
Responsen - 1
TTIn
1. Confirmation the additional stage hypothesis.2. Switch costs are caused by task set competition
TTIn - 1
Motorprocessing