Spontaneous Mind-Wandering Tendencies Linked to Cognitive Flexibility in Young Adults

Despite that previous studies have investigated mind wandering using task-switching paradigms, the association between the tendency to mind wander and cognitive flexibility remains largely unexplored. The present study investigated the relationship between self-reported spontaneous mind-wandering tendencies and task-switching performance in young adults. Seventy-nine university students performed a forced task-switching and a voluntary task-switching paradigm and then completed a battery of questionnaires. The results showed that compared to participants with lower spontaneous mind-wandering tendencies, participants with higher spontaneous mind-wandering tendencies demonstrated better performance (evidenced by smaller switch cost reaction times) in the forced task-switching paradigm despite indicating more mind wandering during task performance. Performance on the voluntary task-switching paradigm, on the other hand, did not differ between the two groups. The findings in the forced task-switching paradigm indicate a link between mind wandering and cognitive flexibility, thus providing initial evidence in favor of a role for switching in mind wandering.

The role of objective and subjective effort costs in voluntary task choice

Human beings tend to avoid effort, if a less effortful option is equally rewarding. However, and in sharp contrast to this claim, we repeatedly found that (a subset of) participants deliberately choose the more difficult of two tasks in a voluntary task switching (VTS) paradigm even though avoidance of the difficult task was allowed (Jurczyk et al., Motivation Science 5:295–313, 2019). In this study, we investigate to what extent the deliberate switch to the difficult task is determined by the actual objective or the subjective effort costs for the difficult task. In two experiments, participants (N = 100, each) first went through several blocks of voluntary task choices between an easy and a difficult task. After that, they worked through an effort discounting paradigm, EDT, (Westbrook et al., PLoS One 8(7):e68210, 2013) that required participants to make a series of iterative choices between re-doing a difficult task block for a fixed amount or an easy task block for a variable (lower) amount of money until the individual indifference point was reached. In Experiment 1, the EDT comprised the same tasks from the VTS, in Experiment 2, EDT used another set of easy vs. difficult tasks. Results showed that the voluntary switch to the difficult task was mostly predicted by the objective performance costs and only marginally be the subjective effort cost. The switch to the difficult task may thus be less irrational than originally thought and at its avoidance at least partially driven by economic considerations.

Component processes underlying voluntary task selection

Most theories describing the cognitive processes underlying task switching allow for contributions of active task-set reconfiguration and task set inertia. Manipulations of the Cue-to-Stimulus-Interval (CSI) are generally thought to influence task set reconfiguration, while Response-to-Stimulus Interval (RSI) manipulations are generally thought to influence task set inertia (i.e., proactive interference from the previous task-set). However, these theories do not adequately account for the processes underlying voluntary task selection, because a participant can theoretically prepare for an upcoming trial at any point. To this end we used drift diffusion models to examine the contributions of reconfiguration and task set inertia in 216 undergraduate students who performed either cued or voluntary task switching paradigms. In both task versions, longer CSIs allowed for better preparation on all trial types. For the voluntary condition, but not the explicit condition, longer RSIs also reduced the effect of switching on preparation when CSIs were short. Further, when given enough time to prepare, participants in the voluntary version prepared more efficiently for switches than repeats. Together, these results indicate the use of a more proactive strategy when participants chose to switch in the voluntary version. In both paradigms, RSI manipulations produced the expected effect on switch costs; however, they consistently slowed repeat performance and generally did not affect performance on switch trials. The results suggest that drift diffusion models can quantify differences in strategy across voluntary and explicit task switching as well as measure contributions of inertia and preparation to voluntary task switching performance, including identifying preparation that occurs outside of the CSI in voluntary switching. The results also suggest that reductions in switch cost caused by reduced inertia might be more related to impeding repeat performance rather than facilitating switch performance. Future work should extend the current findings with manipulations of proactive vs. reactive strategies and other manipulations of inertia.

Component processes underlying voluntary task selection

Most theories describing the cognitive processes underlying task switching allow for contributions of active task-set reconfiguration and task set inertia. Manipulations of the Cue-to-Stimulus-Interval (CSI) are generally thought to influence task set reconfiguration, while Response-to-Stimulus Interval (RSI) manipulations are generally thought to influence task set inertia (i.e., proactive interference from the previous task-set). However, these theories do not adequately account for the processes underlying voluntary task selection, because a participant can theoretically prepare for an upcoming trial at any point. To this end we used drift diffusion models to examine the contributions of reconfiguration and task set inertia in 216 undergraduate students who performed either cued or voluntary task switching paradigms. In both task versions, longer CSIs allowed for better preparation on all trial types. For the voluntary condition, but not the explicit condition, longer RSIs also reduced the effect of switching on preparation when CSIs were short. Further, when given enough time to prepare, participants in the voluntary version prepared more efficiently for switches than repeats. Together, these results indicate the use of a more proactive strategy when participants chose to switch in the voluntary version. In both paradigms, RSI manipulations produced the expected effect on switch costs; however, they consistently slowed repeat performance and generally did not affect performance on switch trials. The results suggest that drift diffusion models can quantify differences in strategy across voluntary and explicit task switching as well as measure contributions of inertia and preparation to voluntary task switching performance, including identifying preparation that occurs outside of the CSI in voluntary switching. The results also suggest that reductions in switch cost caused by reduced inertia might be more related to impeding repeat performance rather than facilitating switch performance. Future work should extend the current findings with manipulations of proactive vs. reactive strategies and other manipulations of inertia.

Increasing reward prospect promotes cognitive flexibility: Direct evidence from voluntary task switching with double registration

Recent research has suggested that sequential changes in the prospect of performance-contingent rewards may influence the balance between cognitive flexibility and stability: whereas constant high reward prospect seems to promote cognitive stability, increasing reward prospect has been shown to promote flexible behaviour in voluntary task-switching paradigms. Previous studies, however, confounded cognitive flexibility regarding voluntary task choices with control processes during task execution. We present five experiments to dissociate these two processes by means of a double registration procedure, in which task choice is registered prior to task execution. The data yielded clear evidence for reward-driven modulation of the flexibility-stability balance already at the level of task choices, with higher voluntary switch rates when reward prospect increased compared with situations in which reward prospect remained high. This effect was further modulated by the specific type of registration procedure, suggesting that only deliberate task choices are affected by the reward sequence. These results thus confirm that the prospect of performance-contingent reward can indeed promote either cognitive stability or flexibility depending on the immediate reward history.