Disentangling task-selection failures from task-execution failures in task switching: an assessment of different paradigms.

Luca Moretti, Iring Koch, Marco Steinhauser, Stefanie Schuch
Author Information
  1. Luca Moretti: Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Jaegerstrasse 17/19, 52066, Aachen, Germany. Luca.Moretti@psych.rwth-aachen.de. ORCID
  2. Iring Koch: Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Jaegerstrasse 17/19, 52066, Aachen, Germany.
  3. Marco Steinhauser: Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Eichstätt, Germany.
  4. Stefanie Schuch: Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Jaegerstrasse 17/19, 52066, Aachen, Germany.

Abstract

Differentiating errors on the basis of the distinct cognitive mechanisms that may have generated them has provided neuropsychologists with useful diagnostic tools. For example, perseverative errors arising from the inability of the patient to set a new criterion for responding are considered one of the hallmarks of cognitive inflexibility. Similarly, in the task-switching paradigm it is possible to distinguish between task-confusion errors, produced by a failure in task selection, and response-confusion errors, arising when the correct task is selected, but the wrong response is given. Nonetheless, only a few studies so far have exploited the existence of different kinds of errors in multitasking situations to inform theories of cognitive flexibility. In the present study, we set out to use a variety of methodologies employed so far in the literature for disentangling errors due to task-selection failure from errors due to task-execution failure. In three experiments, we assessed the capacity of each method to produce error categories that can be mapped as clearly as possible to the cognitive mechanism(s) underlying them using multinomial processing tree modelling. Subsequently, the distinction between task- and response-confusion errors was used to test their differential impact on inhibitory mechanisms in task switching as measured by N-2 repetition costs. Our results are encouraging regarding the possibility of correctly detecting response- and task-selection failures, thus allowing us to assess their differential impact on N-2 repetition costs.

References

  1. PLoS One. 2018 Nov 26;13(11):e0200397 [PMID: 30475803]
  2. Front Hum Neurosci. 2010 Dec 13;4:222 [PMID: 21179583]
  3. J Cogn. 2019 Jul 19;2(1):16 [PMID: 31517234]
  4. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2021 Oct;47(10):1720-1737 [PMID: 34694830]
  5. Psychon Bull Rev. 2010 Feb;17(1):1-14 [PMID: 20081154]
  6. Exp Psychol. 2004;51(1):52-8 [PMID: 14959506]
  7. Psychol Bull. 2010 Jul;136(4):601-26 [PMID: 20565170]
  8. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Jun;60(6):762-9 [PMID: 17514592]
  9. Psychol Res. 2002 Nov;66(4):312-23 [PMID: 12466928]
  10. Behav Res Methods. 2019 Feb;51(1):195-203 [PMID: 30734206]
  11. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Feb;29(1):92-105 [PMID: 12669750]
  12. Psychol Methods. 2017 Jun;22(2):304-321 [PMID: 27280448]
  13. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2021 Feb;83(2):837-852 [PMID: 33169331]
  14. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2004 Jun;30(3):566-82 [PMID: 15161387]
  15. Front Psychol. 2012 Sep 27;3:367 [PMID: 23060836]
  16. J Neurosci. 2011 Jan 26;31(4):1366-74 [PMID: 21273421]
  17. Elife. 2019 Feb 08;8: [PMID: 30735125]
  18. Trends Cogn Sci. 2019 Sep;23(9):769-783 [PMID: 31331794]
  19. Behav Res Methods. 2020 Jun;52(3):1371-1382 [PMID: 31823223]
  20. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Aug;27(4):763-97 [PMID: 11518143]
  21. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2013 Jun;39(3):700-19 [PMID: 22984990]
  22. Psychol Bull. 2018 Jun;144(6):557-583 [PMID: 29517261]
  23. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2017 Aug;43(8):1568-1583 [PMID: 28383961]
  24. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000 Mar;129(1):4-26 [PMID: 10756484]
  25. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2001 Mar;56(2):P88-102 [PMID: 11245363]
  26. Behav Res Methods. 2013 Jun;45(2):560-75 [PMID: 23344733]
  27. Psychol Res. 2020 Oct;84(7):1965-1999 [PMID: 31177315]
  28. Psychophysiology. 2007 Jul;44(4):596-609 [PMID: 17451492]
  29. Psychon Bull Rev. 1999 Mar;6(1):57-86 [PMID: 12199315]
  30. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Nov;33(6):1062-75 [PMID: 17983313]
  31. J Exp Psychol. 1948 Aug;38(4):404-11 [PMID: 18874598]
  32. Behav Res Methods. 2020 Feb;52(1):388-407 [PMID: 31016684]
  33. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1978 Nov;31(2):229-46 [PMID: 737141]
  34. Neuropsychologia. 2017 Nov;106:100-111 [PMID: 28939202]
  35. Psychon Bull Rev. 2012 Dec;19(6):1193-201 [PMID: 22918561]
  36. Psychol Res. 2000;63(3-4):234-49 [PMID: 11004878]
  37. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014 May;40(3):865-72 [PMID: 24364724]
  38. Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Feb;26(1):222-240 [PMID: 30066081]
  39. Front Psychol. 2015 Oct 27;6:1671 [PMID: 26579050]
  40. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007 May 29;362(1481):901-15 [PMID: 17412679]
  41. Mem Cognit. 2017 Jan;45(1):26-39 [PMID: 27517876]
  42. Mem Cognit. 2005 Oct;33(7):1272-88 [PMID: 16532859]
  43. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2012;65(6):1172-84 [PMID: 22375558]
  44. Psychophysiology. 2012 Mar;49(3):427-40 [PMID: 22091961]
  45. Cogn Psychol. 2017 May;94:1-25 [PMID: 28235559]
  46. Neuroimage. 2019 Aug 15;197:344-353 [PMID: 31055042]
  47. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1995 Dec 15;769:191-211 [PMID: 8595026]
  48. Behav Res Methods. 2005 Aug;37(3):379-84 [PMID: 16405133]
  49. Psychol Res. 2011 May;75(3):214-26 [PMID: 20625765]
  50. Psychol Methods. 2003 Dec;8(4):434-47 [PMID: 14664681]
  51. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Feb;34(1):137-57 [PMID: 18248145]
  52. Front Psychol. 2013 Nov 26;4:863 [PMID: 24324449]
  53. Psychol Bull. 2010 Sep;136(5):849-74 [PMID: 20804238]
  54. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Jun;32(3):517-34 [PMID: 16822122]
  55. Mem Cognit. 2007 Jun;35(4):603-9 [PMID: 17848018]
  56. Multivariate Behav Res. 2012 Nov;47(6):877-903 [PMID: 26735007]
  57. Mem Cognit. 2008 Jul;36(5):979-90 [PMID: 18630204]
  58. Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Jun;12(3):530-4 [PMID: 16235641]

Grants

  1. SCHU 3046/1-2/Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  2. KO 2045/19-2/Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
  3. STE 1708/4-2/Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0errorscognitivetaskfailuretask-selectionfailuresmechanismsarisingsetpossibleresponse-confusionfardifferentduetask-executiondifferentialimpactN-2repetitioncostsDifferentiatingbasisdistinctmaygeneratedprovidedneuropsychologistsusefuldiagnostictoolsexampleperseverativeinabilitypatientnewcriterionrespondingconsideredonehallmarksinflexibilitySimilarlytask-switchingparadigmdistinguishtask-confusionproducedselectioncorrectselectedwrongresponsegivenNonethelessstudiesexploitedexistencekindsmultitaskingsituationsinformtheoriesflexibilitypresentstudyusevarietymethodologiesemployedliteraturedisentanglingthreeexperimentsassessedcapacitymethodproduceerrorcategoriescanmappedclearlymechanismsunderlyingusingmultinomialprocessingtreemodellingSubsequentlydistinctiontask-usedtestinhibitoryswitchingmeasuredresultsencouragingregardingpossibilitycorrectlydetectingresponse-thusallowingusassessDisentanglingswitching:assessmentparadigms

Similar Articles

Cited By