Well under control: Control demand changes are sufficient for metacontrol.

Abstract

Metacontrol arises from the efficient retrieval of cognitive control by environmental cues that are predictive of the upcoming control demands. Previous studies have demonstrated that proactive and reactive metacontrol can be indexed by a list-wide switch probability (LWSP) and an item-specific switch probability (ISSP) effect, respectively. However, what triggers metacontrol in the first place has not been clearly articulated. While a "mere-experience" hypothesis attributes metacontrol to changes in control demands, an "affective-signaling" hypothesis suggests that high control demands are aversive and aversiveness drives metacontrol. In two experiments, we adjudicated between these hypotheses by considering the modes of metacontrol (proactive vs. reactive) and temporal dynamics of background valence (sustained vs. transient and positive vs. negative). We induced metacontrol (proactive or reactive) in a task-switching paradigm and created background valence by using positive and negative images as stimuli. With valence being an irrelevant aspect of the task, the design allows us to test whether (task-irrelevant) background valence would modulate metacontrol. While we were able to replicate the LWSP effect in Experiment 1 and the ISSP effect in Experiment 2, we did not find valence modulating either effect, regardless of the background valence being a sustained (Experiment 1) or a transient one (Experiment 2). These findings together suggest that negative valence (i.e., aversiveness) does not necessarily benefit metacontrol, and control demand variations are sufficient to induce metacontrol.