Action plan interrupted: resolution of proactive interference while coordinating execution of multiple action plans during sleep deprivation.

The ability to retain an action plan to execute another is necessary for most complex, goal-directed behavior. Research shows that executing an action plan to an interrupting event can be delayed when it partly overlaps (vs. does not overlap) with the retained action plan. This phenomenon is known as partial repetition costs (PRCs). PRCs reflect proactive interference, which may be resolved by inhibitory, executive control processes. We investigated whether these inhibitory processes are compromised due to one night of sleep deprivation. Participants were randomized to a sleep-deprived group or a well-rested control group. All participants performed an action planning task at baseline after a full night of sleep, and again either after a night of sleep deprivation (sleep-deprived group) or a full night of sleep (control group). In this task, two visual events occurred in a sequence. Participants retained an action plan to the first event in working memory while executing a speeded action to the second (interrupting) event; afterwards, they executed the action to the first event. The two action plans either partly overlapped (required the same hand) or did not (required different hands). Results showed slower responses to the interrupting event during sleep deprivation compared to baseline and the control group. However, the magnitude of the PRCs was no different during sleep deprivation compared to baseline and the control group. Thus, one night of sleep deprivation slowed global responses to the interruption, but inhibitory processes involved in reducing proactive interference while responding to an interrupting event were not compromised. These findings are consistent with other studies that show sleep deprivation degrades global task performance, but does not necessarily degrade performance on isolated, executive control components of cognition. The possibility that our findings involve local as opposed to central inhibition is also discussed.

Starting or finishing sooner? Sequencing preferences in object transfer tasks.

When tasks are performed, other tasks are postponed, at least implicitly. Little is known about how task sequencing is determined. We examined task sequencing in object transfer tasks for which either task could easily or logically come before the other. The task was to transfer ping pong balls from two buckets into a bowl. To perform the task, participants walked down a corridor, picked up one of two buckets (their choice), carried it to the end of the corridor, transferred the balls from the bucket into a bowl, carried the bucket back to the start position, and then did the same with the other remaining bucket. As in an earlier study where just one of two buckets had to be carried to the end of a corridor (Rosenbaum et al. Psychol Sci 25(7):1487-1496, 2014), participants showed a marked tendency to start with the near bucket. The near-bucket preference was modulated only to a small extent by the number of balls that could be emptied into the bowl. The relative lack of importance of the number of balls to be transferred (to finish the first task more quickly or to get closer to the end goal of transferring all balls into the bowl) was further demonstrated by the fact that the effect of the number of balls to be transferred did not depend on how the emptying was supposed to occur (by pouring the balls or placing the balls one at a time into the bowl), or by whether the instruction focused on filling the bowl or emptying the buckets. The results suggest that the near-bucket preference reflects a strong inclination to start the task (sub-goal) as soon as possible rather than complete the task (sub-goal) as soon as possible. Starting the task as soon as possible may be related to the affordance triggered by the sight of the near object or by the freedom to perform without having to inhibit a reach for a bucket when the performer is empty-handed. Starting a task sooner may free up cognitive resources for subsequent decision-making.

Interference due to shared features between action plans is influenced by working memory span.

In this study, we examined the interactions between the action plans that we hold in memory and the actions that we carry out, asking whether the interference due to shared features between action plans is due to selection demands imposed on working memory. Individuals with low and high working memory spans learned arbitrary motor actions in response to two different visual events (A and B), presented in a serial order. They planned a response to the first event (A) and while maintaining this action plan in memory they then executed a speeded response to the second event (B). Afterward, they executed the action plan for the first event (A) maintained in memory. Speeded responses to the second event (B) were delayed when it shared an action feature (feature overlap) with the first event (A), relative to when it did not (no feature overlap). The size of the feature-overlap delay was greater for low-span than for high-span participants. This indicates that interference due to overlapping action plans is greater when fewer working memory resources are available, suggesting that this interference is due to selection demands imposed on working memory. Thus, working memory plays an important role in managing current and upcoming action plans, at least for newly learned tasks. Also, managing multiple action plans is compromised in individuals who have low versus high working memory spans.