scholarly journals Contextual Adaptation of Cognitive Flexibility is driven by Task- and Item-Level Learning

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Audrey Siqi-Liu ◽  
Tobias Egner
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Flexibility ◽  
Stimulus Item ◽  
Transfer Task ◽  
Learning Mechanisms ◽  
Behavioral Experiments ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Cognitive Stability ◽  
Current Task ◽  
Task Sets

Adaptive behavior requires finding, and adjusting, an optimal tradeoff between focusing on a current task-set (cognitive stability) and updating that task-set when the environment changes (cognitive flexibility). Such dynamic adjustments of cognitive flexibility are observed in cued task-switching paradigms, where switch costs tend to decrease as the proportion of switch trials over blocks increases. However, the learning mechanisms underlying this phenomenon, here referred to as the list-wide proportion switch effect (LWPSE), are currently unknown.We addressed this question across four behavioral experiments. Experiment 1 replicated the basic LWPSE reported in previous studies. Having participants switch between three instead of two tasks, Experiment 2 demonstrated that the LWPSE is preserved even when the specific alternate task to switch to cannot be anticipated. Experiments 3a and 3b tested for the generalization of list-wide switch-readiness to an unbiased “transfer task,” presented equally often as switch and repeat trials, by intermixing the transfertask with biased tasks. Despite the list-wide bias, the LWPSE was only found for biased tasks, suggesting that the modulations of switch costs are task set and/or task stimulus (item)-specific. To evaluate these two possibilities, Experiment 4 employed biased versus unbiased stimuli within biased task sets and found switch-cost modulations for both stimuli sets. These results establish how people adapt their stability-flexibility tradeoff to different contexts. Specifically, our findings show that people learn to associate context appropriate levels of switch readiness with switch-predictive cues, provided by task sets as well as specific task stimuli.

Individual differences in resilience to stress are associated with affective flexibility

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lena Rademacher ◽  
Dominik Kraft ◽  
Cindy Eckart ◽  
Christian Fiebach
Keyword(s):  
Response Time ◽  
Cognitive Flexibility ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Affective Valence ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Cognitive Stability ◽  
Situational Demands ◽  
Affective Information ◽  
Relationship Of

Cognitive flexibility, the capacity to adjust behavior to changing situational demands, is frequently linked to resilience because of its important contribution to stress regulation. In this context, particularly affective flexibility, defined as the ability to flexibly attend and disengage from affective information, may play a significant role. However, there are so far only very few empirical investigations that directly explore the link between flexibility and resilience to stress. In the present study, the relationship of cognitive and affective flexibility and resilience was examined in 100 healthy participants. Resilience was measured with three self-report questionnaires, two defining resilience as a personality trait and one focusing on resilience as an outcome in the sense of stress coping abilities. Cognitive and affective flexibility were assessed in two experimental task switching paradigms with non-affective and affective materials and tasks, respectively. The cognitive flexibility paradigm additionally included measures of cognitive stability and dispositional cognitive flexibility. In the affective flexibility paradigm, we explicitly considered the affective valence of the stimuli before and during task switching. Response time switch costs in the affective flexibility paradigm were significantly correlated to all three self-report measures of resilience. Regarding the valence of the stimuli, the correlation with resilience was not specific to costs when switching from negative to positive information or vice versa. For cognitive (i.e., non-affective) flexibility, a significant correlation of response time switch costs was found with only one of the three resilience measures. A regression analysis including both affective and cognitive switch costs as predictors of resilience indicated that only affective, but not cognitive switch costs, explained unique variance components. Furthermore, the experimental measures of cognitive stability and dispositional cognitive flexibility did not correlate with resilience scores. These findings suggest that specifically the efficiency of flexibly switching between affective and non-affective information is related to resilience.

scholarly journals No need to choose: independent regulation of cognitive stability and flexibility challenges the stability-flexibility tradeoff

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael Markus Geddert ◽  
Tobias Egner
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Cognitive Stability ◽  
Attentional Set Shifting ◽  
Current Task ◽  
Empirical Tests ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Contextual Adaptation ◽  
Robust Evidence ◽  
A Current

Adaptive behavior requires the ability to focus on a current task and protect it from distraction (cognitive stability) as well as the ability to rapidly switch to another task in light of changing circumstances (cognitive flexibility). Cognitive stability and flexibility have commonly been conceptualized as opposite endpoints on a stability-flexibility tradeoff continuum, implying an obligatory reciprocity between the two: greater flexibility necessitates less stability, and vice versa. Surprisingly, rigorous empirical tests of this critical assumption are lacking, however. Here, we tested this assumption by acquiring simultaneous measurements of cognitive stability (congruency effects) and flexibility (switch costs) while independently varying contextual demands on these functions with block-wise manipulations of the proportion of incongruent trials and task switches, respectively. If cognitive stability and flexibility are reciprocal, an increase in flexibility in response to higher switch rates should lead to a commensurate decrease in stability, and an increase in stability in response to more frequent incongruent trials should result in decreased flexibility. Across three experiments, using classic cued task switching (Experiments 1 and 3) and attentional set shifting (Experiment 2) protocols, we found robust evidence against an obligatory stability-flexibility tradeoff. Although we observed the expected contextual adaptation of stability and flexibility to changing demands, strategic adjustments in stability had no influence on flexibility, and vice versa. These results refute the long-held assumption of a stability-flexibility tradeoff, documenting instead that the cognitive processes mediating these functions can be regulated independently - it is possible to be both stable and flexible at the same time.

scholarly journals How Sequentially Changing Reward Prospect Modulates Meta-control: Increasing Reward Prospect Promotes Cognitive Flexibility

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin Fröber ◽  
Gesine Dreisbach
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Cognitive Flexibility ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Control Signal ◽  
The Other ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Cognitive Stability ◽  
High Reward ◽  
Nonsignificant Difference ◽  
Switch Rate

Abstract Meta-control is necessary to regulate the balance between cognitive stability and flexibility. Evidence from (voluntary) task switching studies suggests performance-contingent reward as one modulating factor. Depending on the immediate reward history, reward prospect seems to promote either cognitive stability or flexibility: Increasing reward prospect reduced switch costs and increased the voluntary switch rate, suggesting increased cognitive flexibility. In contrast, remaining high reward prospect increased switch costs and reduced the voluntary switch rate, suggesting increased cognitive stability. Recently we suggested that increasing reward prospect serves as a meta-control signal toward cognitive flexibility by lowering the updating threshold in working memory. However, in task switching paradigms with two tasks only, this could alternatively be explained by facilitated switching to the other of two tasks. To address this issue, a series of task switching experiments with uncued task switching between three univalent tasks was conducted. Results showed a reduction in reaction time (RT) switch costs to a nonsignificant difference and a high voluntary switch rate when reward prospect increased, whereas repetition RTs were faster, switch RTs slower, and voluntary switch rate was reduced when reward prospect remained high. That is, increasing reward prospect put participants in a state of equal readiness to respond to any target stimulus—be it a task repetition or a switch to one of the other two tasks. The study thus provides further evidence for the assumption that increasing reward prospect serves as a meta-control signal to increase cognitive flexibility, presumably by lowering the updating threshold in working memory.

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.

scholarly journals Music Modulates Cognitive Flexibility? An Investigation of the Benefits of Musical Training on Markers of Cognitive Flexibility

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 451
Author(s):  
Miriam Gade ◽  
Kathrin Schlemmer
Keyword(s):  
Everyday Life ◽  
Cognitive Flexibility ◽  
Musical Training ◽  
Rapid Change ◽  
Task Sequence ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Classification Tasks ◽  
Professional Contexts ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Task Sequences

Cognitive flexibility enables the rapid change in goals humans want to attain in everyday life as well as in professional contexts, e.g., as musicians. In the laboratory, cognitive flexibility is usually assessed using the task-switching paradigm. In this paradigm participants are given at least two classification tasks and are asked to switch between them based on valid cues or memorized task sequences. The mechanisms enabling cognitive flexibility are investigated through two empirical markers, namely switch costs and n-2 repetition costs. In this study, we assessed both effects in a pre-instructed task-sequence paradigm. Our aim was to assess the transfer of musical training to non-musical stimuli and tasks. To this end, we collected the data of 49 participants that differed in musical training assessed using the Goldsmiths Musical Sophistication Index. We found switch costs that were not significantly influenced by the degree of musical training. N-2 repetition costs were small for all levels of musical training and not significant. Musical training did not influence performance to a remarkable degree and did not affect markers of mechanisms underlying cognitive flexibility, adding to the discrepancies of findings on the impact of musical training in non-music-specific tasks.

Task-order representations in dual tasks: Separate or integrated with component task sets?

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110184
Author(s):  
Lynn Huestegge ◽  
Mareike A Hoffmann ◽  
Tilo Strobach
Keyword(s):  
Temporal Order ◽  
Spatial Task ◽  
Task Characteristics ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Task Order ◽  
Order Task ◽  
Component Task ◽  
Specific Manner ◽  
Oculomotor Responses ◽  
Task Sets

In situations requiring the execution of two tasks at around the same time, we need to decide which of the tasks should be executed first. Previous research has revealed several factors that affect the outcome of such response order control processes, including bottom-up factors (e.g., the temporal order of the stimuli associated with the two tasks) and top-down factors (e.g., instructions). In addition, it has been shown that tasks associated with certain response modalities are preferably executed first (e.g., temporal prioritisation of tasks involving oculomotor responses). In this study, we focused on a situation in which task order has to be unpredictably switched from trial to trial and asked whether task-order representations are coded separately or integrated with the component task sets (i.e., in a task-specific manner). Across three experiments, we combined two tasks known to differ in prioritisation, namely an oculomotor and a manual (or pedal) task. The results indicated robust task-order switch costs (i.e., longer RTs when task order was switched vs. repeated). Importantly, the data demonstrate that it is possible to show an asymmetry of task-order switch costs: While these costs were of similar size for both task orders in one particular experimental setting with specific spatial task characteristics, two experiments consistently indicated that it was easier for participants to switch to their prioritised task order (i.e., to execute the dominant oculomotor task first). This suggests that in a situation requiring frequent task-order switches (indicated by unpredictable changes in stimulus order), task order is represented in an integrated, task-specific manner, bound to characteristics (here, associated effector systems) of the component tasks.

scholarly journals EXPRESS: When Two Actors Perform Different Tasks: Still No Evidence for Shared Task-Sets in Joint Task Switching

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110315
Author(s):  
Motonori Yamaguchi ◽  
Husnain H. Shah ◽  
Bernhard Hommel
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
The Other ◽  
Shared Task ◽  
Joint Condition ◽  
Task Instructions ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Joint Task ◽  
Task Sets ◽  
Rule Out

Two different variations of joint task switching led to different conclusions as to whether co-acting individuals share the same task-sets. The present study aimed at bridging this gap by replicating the version in which two actors performed two different tasks. Experiment 1 showed switch costs across two actors in a joint condition, which agreed with previous studies, but also yielded even larger switch costs in a solo condition, which contradicted the claim that actors represent an alternative task as their own when it is carried out by the co-actor but not when no one carries it out. Experiments 2 and 3 further examined switch costs in the solo condition with the aim to rule out possible influences of task instructions for and experiences with the other task that was not assigned to the actor. Before participants were instructed on the second of the two tasks, switch costs were still obtained without a co-actor when explicit task names (“COLOUR” and “SHAPE”) served as go/nogo signals (Experiment 2), but not when arbitrary symbols (“XXXX” and “​​​​”) served as go/nogo signals (Experiment 3). The results thus imply that switch costs depend on participants’ knowledge of task cues being assigned to two different tasks, but not on whether the other task is performed by a co-actor. These findings undermine the assumption that switch costs in the joint conditions reflect shared task-sets between co-actors in this procedure.

scholarly journals No-go trials in task switching: effects on the task-set and task-space level

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliane Scheil ◽  
Thomas Kleinsorge
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
The Other ◽  
Specific Task ◽  
Task Space ◽  
Response Level ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Common Marker ◽  
Task Sets ◽  
And Task

AbstractA common marker for inhibition processes in task switching are n − 2 repetition costs. The present study aimed at elucidating effects of no-go trials on n − 2 repetition costs. In contrast to the previous studies, no-go trials were associated with only one of the three tasks in the present two experiments. High n − 2 repetition costs occurred if the no-go task had to be executed in trial n − 2, irrespective of whether a response had to be withheld or not. In contrast, no n − 2 repetition costs were visible if the other two tasks were relevant in n − 2. Whereas this n − 2 effect was unaffected by whether participants could reliably exclude a no-go trial or not, effects of no-gos in trial n were determined by this knowledge. The results differ from effects of no-go trials that are not bound to a specific task. It is assumed that the present no-go variation exerted its effect not on the response level, but on the level of task sets, resulting in enhanced salience of the no-go task that leads to higher activation and, as a consequence, to stronger inhibition. The dissociation of the effects on no-gos in trials n − 2 and n as a function of foreknowledge suggests that the balance between activation and inhibition is shifted not only for single trials and tasks, but for the whole task space.

Learning of across- and within-task contingencies modulates partial-repetition costs in dual-tasking

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lasse Pelzer ◽  
Christoph Naefgen ◽  
Robert Gaschler ◽  
Hilde Haider
Keyword(s):  
Dual Task ◽  
Discrimination Task ◽  
Experimental Approach ◽  
Feature Binding ◽  
Dual Tasking ◽  
Single Task ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Task Processing ◽  
Tone Discrimination ◽  
Task Sets

AbstractDual-task costs might result from confusions on the task-set level as both tasks are not represented as distinct task-sets, but rather being integrated into a single task-set. This suggests that events in the two tasks are stored and retrieved together as an integrated memory episode. In a series of three experiments, we tested for such integrated task processing and whether it can be modulated by regularities between the stimuli of the two tasks (across-task contingencies) or by sequential regularities within one of the tasks (within-task contingencies). Building on the experimental approach of feature binding in action control, we tested whether the participants in a dual-tasking experiment will show partial-repetition costs: they should be slower when only the stimulus in one of the two tasks is repeated from Trial n − 1 to Trial n than when the stimuli in both tasks repeat. In all three experiments, the participants processed a visual-manual and an auditory-vocal tone-discrimination task which were always presented concurrently. In Experiment 1, we show that retrieval of Trial n − 1 episodes is stable across practice if the stimulus material is drawn randomly. Across-task contingencies (Experiment 2) and sequential regularities within a task (Experiment 3) can compete with n − 1-based retrieval leading to a reduction of partial-repetition costs with practice. Overall the results suggest that participants do not separate the processing of the two tasks, yet, within-task contingencies might reduce integrated task processing.

scholarly journals Analysis and Design of the Battery Initial Energy Level with Task Scheduling for Energy-Harvesting Embedded Systems

Complexity ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Xingyu Miao ◽  
Jiayuan Wei ◽  
Yongqi Ge
Keyword(s):  
Energy Harvesting ◽  
Energy Level ◽  
Initial Energy ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Worst Case ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Analysis And Design ◽  
Available Energy ◽  
Battery Capacity ◽  
Task Sets

When the energy-harvesting embedded system (EHES) is running, its available energy (harvesting energy and battery storage energy) seems to be sufficient overall. However, in the process of EHES task execution, an energy shortage may occur in the busy period such that system tasks cannot be scheduled. We call this issue the energy deception (ED) of the EHES. Aiming to address the ED issue, we design an appropriate initial energy level of the battery. In this paper, we propose three algorithms to judge the feasibility of the task set and calculate the appropriate initial energy level of the battery. The holistic energy evaluation (HEE) algorithm makes a preliminary judgment of the task set feasibility according to available energy and consumption energy. A worst-case response time-based initial energy level of the battery (WCRT-IELB) algorithm and an accurate cycle-initial energy level of the battery (AC-IELB) algorithm can calculate the proper initial battery capacity. We use the YARTISS tool to simulate the above three algorithms. We conducted 250 experiments on As Late As Possible (ALAP) and As Soon As Possible (ASAP) scheduling with the maximum battery capacities of 50, 100, 200, 300, and 400. The experimental results show that setting a reasonable initial energy level of the battery can effectively improve the feasibility of the task set. Among the 250 task sets, the HEE algorithm filtered 2.8% of them as infeasible task sets. When the battery capacity is set to 400, the WCRT-BIEL algorithm increases the success rates of the ALAP and ASAP by 17.2% and 26.8%, respectively. The AC-BIEL algorithm increases the success rates of the ALAP and ASAP by 18% and 26.8%, respectively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document