Search

The aim was to examine theories of bilingual inhibitory control superiority in the visual domain. In an ambiguous figure task, the ability to reverse (switch) interpretations (e.g., duck-rabbit) was examined in 3–5-year-olds bilinguals and monolinguals (N = 67). Bilingualism was no performance predictor in conceptual tasks (Droodle task, false belief task, ambiguous figures production task) that did not pose inhibitory demands. Bilinguals outperformed monolinguals in the ability to reverse, suggesting superior inhibitory capacity per se. Once reversal was experienced there was no difference in the time it took to reverse or reversal frequency between bilinguals and monolinguals. Bayesian analyses confirmed statistical result patterns. Findings support the established view of bilinguals' superior domain-general inhibitory control. This might be brought to bear by attending the environment differently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Simon effect, that is the advantage of the spatial correspondence between stimulus and response locations when stimulus location is task irrelevant, occurs even when the task is performed by two participants, each performing a go/no-go task. This effect, known as the joint Simon effect, does not emerge when participants sit outside each other's peripersonal space, thus suggesting that the presence of an active confederate in peripersonal space might provide a reference for response coding. The present study investigated whether this finding is due to the distance separating the participants and/or to the distance separating each participant and the other agent's response. In two experiments, pairs of participants performed a social detection task sitting outside each other's arm reach, with response keys located close to the participants or outside arm reach. When the response key was located outside the participant's arm reach, he/she could reach it by means of a tool. In Experiment 1, by means of a tool, participants could reach their response key only, while in Experiment 2, they could reach also their co-agent's response key. The joint Simon effect did not emerge when participants could not reach the co-actor's response, while it emerged when they could potentially reach the other participant's response using the tool, but only when turn taking was required. These results may be taken as evidence that the possibility to reach and act upon the co-actor's response key may be at the bases of compatibility effects observed in joint action contexts requiring complementary responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Stroop-matching task is a variation of the Stroop task in which participants have to compare a Stroop stimulus attribute (color or word) to a second stimulus. The Stroop-matching response conflict (SMRC) represents an interference related to the processes involved in selection/execution of manual responses. In the present study, we developed a variation of the Stroop-matching task in which the Stroop stimuli were matched to graspable objects (a cup) with intact or broken handles laterally oriented (Experiment 1) or to colored bars laterally presented (Experiment 2). It allowed testing the presence of the correspondence effect for lateralized handles and bars and its possible influence on SMRC. Two different intervals (100 and 800 ms) were also included to investigate time modulations in behavioral performance (reaction time and accuracy). Fifty-five volunteers participated in the study. In both experiments, significant SMRC was found, but no interaction occurred between SMRC and correspondence effect, supporting that the hypothesis of different and relatively independent psychological mechanisms is at the basis of each effect. Because significant facilitation for ipsilateral motor responses (correspondence effect) occurred for graspable objects but not for lateralized bars, the attentional shift/spatial-coding view was not able to completely explain our data, and therefore, the grasping affordance hypothesis remained as the most plausible explanation. The time course of facilitation observed in the first experiment and by others indicates the importance of further studies to better understand the time dynamic of facilitation/inhibition of motor responses induced by graspable objects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Motor imagery requires the covert execution of a movement without any overt motor output. Previous studies indicated that motor imagery results in the prolonged inhibition of motor commands. In the present study, we investigated whether motor imagery also leads to the inhibition of more abstract task representations. To do so, we investigated the effect of motor imagery on n − 2 repetition costs, which offer an index of the extent to which task representations are inhibited. Participants switched among three tasks and among two response modes: overt and covert responding (i.e., motor imagery). N – 2 repetition costs were present when the current trial required an overt response but absent when the current trial required a covert response. Furthermore, n − 2 repetition costs were more pronounced when trial n − 1 required a covert response rather than an overt response. This pattern of results suggests that motor imagery also leads to the inhibition of abstract task representations. We discuss our findings in view of current conceptualizations of motor imagery and argue that the inhibitory mechanism entailed by motor imagery targets more than motor commands alone. Finally, we also relate our findings to the mechanisms underlying the inhibition of task representations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Task inhibition is considered to facilitate switching to a new task and is assumed to decay slowly over time. Hence, more persisting inhibition needs to be overcome when returning to a task after one intermediary trial (ABA task sequence) than when returning after two or more intermediary trials (CBA task sequence). Schuch and Grange (J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 41:760–767, 2015) put forward the hypothesis that there is higher task conflict in ABA than CBA sequences, leading to increased cognitive control in the subsequent trial. They provided evidence that performance is better in trials following ABA than following CBA task sequences. Here, this effect of the previous task sequence ("N-3 effect") is further investigated by varying the cue–stimulus interval (CSI), allowing for short (100 ms) or long (900 ms) preparation time for the upcoming task. If increased cognitive control after ABA involves a better preparation for the upcoming task, the N-3 effect should be larger with long than short CSI. The results clearly show that this is not the case. In Experiment 1, the N-3 effect was smaller with long than short CSI; in Experiment 2, the N-3 effect was not affected by CSI. Diffusion model analysis confirmed previous results in the literature (regarding the effect of CSI and of the ABA–CBA difference); however, the N-3 effect was not unequivocally associated with any of the diffusion model parameters. In exploratory analysis, we also tested the alternative hypothesis that the N-3 effect involves more effective task shielding, which would be reflected in reduced congruency effects in trials following ABA, relative to trials following CBA; congruency effects did not differ between these conditions. Taken together, we can rule out two potential explanations of the N-3 effect: Neither is this effect due to enhanced task preparation, nor to more effective task shielding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The handle-to-hand correspondence effect refers to faster and more accurate responses when the responding hand is aligned with the graspable part of an object tool, compared to when they lay on opposite sides. We performed four behavioral experiments to investigate whether this effect depends on the activation of grasping affordances (affordance activation account) or is to be traced back to a Simon effect, resulting from the spatial coding of stimuli and responses and from their dimensional overlap (location coding account). We manipulated the availability of a response alternative by requiring participants to perform either a unimanual go/no-go task (absence of a response alternative) or a joint go/no-go task (available response alternative) and the type of response required (button-press or grasping response). We found no handle-to-hand correspondence effect in the individual go/no-go task either when a button-press (Experiment 1A) or a grasping (Experiment 2A) response was required, whereas a significant effect emerged in the joint go/no-go task, irrespective of response modality (Experiments1B and 2B). These results do not support the idea that complex motor affordances are activated for meaningful objects, but are rather consistent with the more parsimonious location coding account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When interacting with others, people represent their own as well as their interaction partners' actions. Such joint action representation is essential for action coordination, but may also interfere with action control. We investigated how joint action representations affect experienced control over people's own actions and their interaction partners' actions. Participants performed a joint go/no-go task, which is commonly used to measure to what extent people represent their own actions in spatial reference to their interaction partner (e.g., as 'left' vs. 'right'). After each second trial, participants indicated experienced control over their own action, their interaction partner's action, or over action inhibition. Despite this frequent interruption of the go/no-go task, we found strong evidence for the spatial representation of joint actions. However, this joint action representation did not affect experiences of control. Possible explanations and implications of these findings are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]