Search

Conflict adaptation is a cognitive mechanism denoting increased cognitive control upon detection of conflict. This mechanism can be measured by the congruency sequence effect, indicating the reduction of congruency effects after incongruent trials (where response conflict occurs) relative to congruent trials (without response conflict). Several studies have reported increased conflict adaptation under negative, as compared to positive, mood. In these studies, sustained mood states were induced by film clips or music combined with imagination techniques; these kinds of mood manipulations are highly obvious, possibly distorting the actual mood states experienced by the participants. Here, we report two experiments where mood states were induced in a less obvious way, and with higher ecological validity. Participants received success or failure feedback on their performance in a bogus intelligence test, and this mood manipulation proved highly effective. We largely replicated previous findings of larger conflict adaptation under negative mood than under positive mood, both with a Flanker interference paradigm (Experiment 1) and a Stroop-like interference paradigm (Experiment 2). Results are discussed with respect to current theories on affective influences on cognitive control.

In task switching studies, response repetition effects are typically obtained: When the task repeats, response repetitions are faster than response switches (response repetition benefit), but when the task switches, the opposite is found (response repetition cost). Previously, it was found that spatial response distance [RD] affected the response repetitions: separated response keys led to longer reaction times [RT] for response repetitions (in both task repetitions and task switches) than adjacent response keys. The goal of the present study was to replicate this RD effect in a modified setup with auditory stimuli (in Experiments 1 and 2). As we were interested in the temporal dynamics of the RD effect, we also introduced a block-wise manipulation of response-stimulus interval (RSI) in Experiment 2. RD modulated responding, replicating the results of a prior study that used visual stimuli, but only when the RSI was long. With short RSI, the RD effect was not obtained. At the same time, a long RSI led to more pronounced response repetition effects in the error rates. These results imply that response inhibition from the previous trial, which is assumed to contribute to the response repetition effect and to the modulation of responding by response distance, builds up over time.

Previous research into the mechanisms of task switching has shown that repeating the same response in a different task context is associated with costs. To investigate whether such response-repetition costs occur even when the first of the two responses is not overtly executed, we used a variant of the change-signal paradigm. Subjects responded to a first stimulus by pressing a left or right response key. In half of the trials, a second stimulus occurred after a variable, adaptively adjusted delay, indicating to abandon the first response, and only respond to the second stimulus using another set of left and right response keys. In Experiment 1, different tasks had to be performed with the first and second stimulus (task-switch condition); in Experiment 2, the same task had to be performed with both stimuli (task-repetition condition). Response-repetition costs were obtained in Experiment 1, and response-repetition benefits in Experiment 2. Importantly, these costs and benefits were obtained even when the first of the two responses had not been overtly executed. The data support the idea that interference of task-specific response codes occurs at the level of abstract response codes. Interference of such response codes occurs even when the responses are not overtly executed.

In task switching, response repetitions typically lead to performance benefits for task repetitions but costs for task switches. We examined whether this cost-benefit pattern is affected by response discriminability (RD), varying (a) the anatomical response separation (within-hand vs. between-hand responses) and (b) the spatial separation (close vs. far response keys). We assumed that anatomical RD increases response competition generally, whereas spatial RD increases the salience of left-right coding and thus facilitates response selection. In two experiments, we found that spatial RD increased the response-repetition costs in task switches but similarly decreased the response-repetition benefit in task repetitions. The effect of spatial RD was response-specific but did not interact with task switching. This data pattern is consistent with a recent account that proposed that facilitated response selection increases response "self-inhibition" after response execution. In contrast, the influence of anatomical RD primarily consisted of an overall increase of reaction-time level in all conditions, whereas error rates decreased, suggesting a general shift in response criterion. Taken together, the data suggest that a self-inhibition mechanism on the level of motor response codes contributes to response-repetition effects in task switching, which is possibly independent of task-specific mechanisms of strengthening of associations.