It enforces an updating operation,

It enforces an updating operation, CP-690550 cell line which in turn creates an unconditional opening for any memory traces associated with the current context, wanted or unwanted, to influence processing. However, there is an alternative possibility. Across alternating blocks, the specific interruption task (e.g., solving math equations) may become linked with either of the two possible tasks that can potentially follow the interruption task via associative learning. Thus, after concluding a math trial, there may be two learned associations in place, one to the endogenous task and the other to the exogenous task and a time-consuming, controlled

retrieval process may be necessary to determine the currently relevant task. To examine this possibility we used two different interruption tasks in Experiment 3. The first was

the math task, identical to the one used in Experiments 1 and 2. The second task involved solving simple anagrams (i.e., the “word task”). In the critical condition there was a consistent mapping between interruption task and block type (i.e., 2:2 mapping), such that for half of the subjects the math task would be only coupled with the exogenous task and the word task only with the endogenous Smad inhibitor task (and the other way round for the other half of the subjects). We compared this condition to one in which each participant was exposed to only one interruption task for both endogenous and exogenous blocks (i.e., 1:2 mapping). If learned associations matter then the cost-asymmetry pattern should be present only in the group with the inconsistent 1:2 mapping. However, if we obtain the cost asymmetry even when type of interruption is consistently mapped to block type then this would suggest that interference is due to the structural effect of interruptions rather than to specific associations. In this experiment, we also wanted to rule out another Arachidonate 15-lipoxygenase possible alternative

explanation for the interruption-triggered cost asymmetry. In Experiments 1 and 2, the interruption-task stimuli were presented centrally, which is the same area on the screen where also the cue for the endogenous task was shown. This overlap in location may have biased participants towards the center of the screen while recovering from the interruption, thus giving priority to the endogenous task cues. The fact that the cost asymmetry was absent for the single-task conditions or much reduced when the endogenous task was experienced without conflict (in both of which the interruption task was also presented centrally) indicates that the positioning of the interruption task could not be the sole explanation. However, it is possible that this served as a mitigating factor. Therefore, in Experiment 3 we presented the interruption task at random locations on the screen, avoiding positions closer than 6° to the center. A total of 40 students of the University of Oregon participated in exchange for course credits in this experiment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>