Abstract

Cognitive control is required in situations that involve uncertainty or change, such as when resolving conflict, selecting responses and switching tasks. Recently, it has been suggested that cognitive control can be conceptualised as a mechanism which prioritises goal-relevant information to deal with uncertainty. This hypothesis has been supported using a paradigm that requires conflict resolution. In this study, we examine whether cognitive control during task switching is also consistent with this notion. We used information theory to quantify the level of uncertainty in different trial types during a cued task-switching paradigm. We test the hypothesis that differences in uncertainty between task repeat and task switch trials can account for typical behavioural effects in task-switching. Increasing uncertainty was associated with less efficient performance (i.e., slower and less accurate), particularly on switch trials and trials that afford little opportunity for advance preparation. Interestingly, both mixing and switch costs were associated with a common episodic control process. These results support the notion that cognitive control may be conceptualised as an information processor that serves to resolve uncertainty in the environment.

Highlights

  • Cognitive control over thoughts and actions facilitates adaptation to our often uncertain environment, by enabling selective, goal-directed behaviours (e.g., [1,2,3,4])

  • Mixed-repeat trials were faster than both switch-to (RT; t(93) = -11.32, p < .001) and non-informative repeat trials (RT; t(93) = -16.66, p < .001)

  • RT was faster for repeat trials in single-task than mixed-task blocks (t(18) = -5.73, p < .001)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Cognitive control over thoughts and actions facilitates adaptation to our often uncertain environment, by enabling selective, goal-directed behaviours (e.g., [1,2,3,4]). Models of cognitive control posit a multi-process mechanism, subserved by complex frontal networks and activated under a range of contexts that require choice under conflict. These contexts can include detecting and resolving conflict [1], selecting responses, shifting between tasks, updating relevant rules [3,5], and learning novel associations [6]. Mackie, Van Dam & Fan (2013) [7] proposed that prioritisation of information processing may be the overarching mechanism by which cognitive control facilitates goaldirected behaviour. Given the limited capacity of the human attentional system, offering goalrelevant information privileged access to processing may contribute to efficient allocation of PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0131556 June 24, 2015

Objectives
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.