Get access

Sequence effects in cued task switching modulate response preparedness and repetition priming processes

Authors

  • Sharna Jamadar,

    1. Functional Neuroimaging Laboratory, School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
    2. Centre for Brain and Mental Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
    3. Schizophrenia Research Institute, Sydney, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Patricia T. Michie,

    1. Functional Neuroimaging Laboratory, School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
    2. Centre for Brain and Mental Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
    3. Schizophrenia Research Institute, Sydney, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Frini Karayanidis

    1. Functional Neuroimaging Laboratory, School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
    2. Centre for Brain and Mental Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
    3. Schizophrenia Research Institute, Sydney, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author

  • This research was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award and Schizophrenia Research Institute Postgraduate Scholarship to Sharna Jamadar. Research was funded by the University of Newcastle Research Grants Committee and the Hunter Medical Research Institute. The project was approved by the University of Newcastle and Hunter New England Area Health Human Research Ethics Committees. We wish to thank Rebecca Nicholson for assistance with paradigm development, Gavin Cooper for software development, and Bill Budd and Matthew Hughes for discussions related to design and analysis.

Address reprint requests to: Dr. Frini Karayanidis, Functional Neuroimaging Laboratory, School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, 2308, Australia. E-mail: frini.karayanidis@newcastle.edu.au.

Abstract

In task-switching paradigms, reaction time (RT) switch cost is eliminated on trials after a no-go trial (no-go/go sequence effect). We examined the locus of no-go interference on task-switching performance by comparing the event-related potential (ERP) time course of go/go and no-go/go sequences from cue onset to response execution. We also examined whether noninformative trials (i.e., delayed reconfiguration, no response inhibition) produce similar sequence effects. Participants switched using informative and noninformative cues (Experiment 2) intermixed with no-go trials (Experiment 1). Repeat RT was slower for both no-go/informative (pNG/I) and noninformative/informative (pNI/I) than informative/informative sequences. ERPs linked to anticipatory preparation showed no effect of trial sequence. ERPs indicated that pNG/I sequences reduce response readiness whereas pNI/I sequences reduce repetition benefit for repeat trials. Implications for task-switching models are discussed.

Ancillary