Using the Contralateral Delay Activity to Probe the Nature of Task Set Representations

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atsushi Kikumoto ◽  
Ulrich Mayr
Keyword(s):  
Task Set ◽  
Contralateral Delay Activity ◽  
Set Representations

scholarly journals The Role of DRD1 and DRD2 Receptors for Response Selection Under Varying Complexity Levels: Implications for Metacontrol Processes

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. 747-753 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Zink ◽  
Wiebke Bensmann ◽  
Larissa Arning ◽  
Lorenza S Colzato ◽  
Ann-Kathrin Stock ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Control ◽  
Response Selection ◽  
Low Complexity ◽  
Complex Task ◽  
Nucleotide Polymorphisms ◽  
Bayesian Analyses ◽  
Task Set ◽  
D1 And D2 Receptors ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Set Representations

Abstract Background Highly complex tasks generally benefit from increases in cognitive control, which has been linked to dopamine. Yet, the same amount of control may actually be detrimental in tasks with low complexity so that the task-dependent allocation of cognitive control resources (also known as “metacontrol”) is key to expedient and adaptive behavior in various contexts. Methods Given that dopamine D1 and D2 receptors have been suggested to exert opposing effects on cognitive control, we investigated the impact of 2 single nucleotide polymorphisms in the DRD1 (rs4532) and DRD2 (rs6277) genes on metacontrol in 195 healthy young adults. Subjects performed 2 consecutive tasks that differed in their demand for control (starting with the less complex task and then performing a more complex task rule). Results We found carriers of the DRD1 rs4532 G allele to outperform noncarriers in case of high control requirements (i.e., reveal a better response accuracy), but not in case of low control requirements. This was confirmed by Bayesian analyses. No effects of DRD2 rs6277 genotype on either task were evident, again confirmed by Bayesian analyses. Conclusions Our findings suggest that higher DRD1 receptor efficiency improves performance during high, but not low, control requirements, probably by promoting a “D1 state,” which is characterized by highly stable task set representations. The null findings for DRD2 signaling might be explained by the fact that the “D2 state” is thought to enhance flexible switching between task set representations when our task only featured 1 task set at any given time.

A Review of the Role of Cue Processing in Task Switching

2013 ◽  
Vol 221 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin Jost ◽  
Wouter De Baene ◽  
Iring Koch ◽  
Marcel Brass
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Control ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Task Switch ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Set Switching ◽  
Controversial Topic ◽  
Cue Encoding ◽  
Cue Processing

The role of cue processing has become a controversial topic in research on cognitive control using task-switching procedures. Some authors suggested a priming account to explain switch costs as a form of encoding benefit when the cue from the previous trial is repeated and hence challenged theories that attribute task-switch costs to task-set (re)configuration. A rich body of empirical evidence has evolved that indeed shows that cue-encoding repetition priming is an important component in task switching. However, these studies also demonstrate that there are usually substantial “true” task-switch costs. Here, we review this behavioral, electrophysiological, and brain imaging evidence. Moreover, we describe alternative approaches to the explicit task-cuing procedure, such as the usage of transition cues or the task-span procedure. In addition, we address issues related to the type of cue, such as cue transparency. We also discuss methodological and theoretical implications and argue that the explicit task-cuing procedure is suitable to address issues of cognitive control and task-set switching.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document