Comparing partial repetition costs in two- and four-choice tasks: Evidence for abstract relational codes.

Responses are slower in two-choice tasks when either a previous stimulus feature or the previous response repeats than when all features repeat or all features change. Current views of action control posit that such partial repetition costs (PRCs) index the time to update a prior "binding" between a stimulus feature and the response or to resolve processing conflicts between retrieved and current features. However, violating a heuristic that stimulus feature repetitions and changes "signal" repetitions or changes of the previous response, respectively, may also contribute to such costs. To determine whether such relational codes affect performance, we compared PRCs in two- and four-choice tasks. While a stimulus feature repetition signals a response repetition in both tasks, a stimulus feature change signals a specific alternative response only in a two-choice task. Consistent with the signaling hypothesis, we observed similar complete repetition benefits in the two- and four-choice tasks but smaller complete change benefits in the four-choice task. We also investigated whether the smaller complete change benefit in the four-choice task-that is, the signaling effect-varies with the validity of the signal in the previous trial. In all four experiments, we observed a larger signaling effect after trials in which stimulus changes or repetitions corresponded to response changes or repetitions, respectively, than after trials in which stimulus changes did not correspond with response changes. We conclude that signaling contributes to PRCs, which indicates that bindings include relational codes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Response-repetition costs in task switching do not index a simple response-switch bias: Evidence from manipulating the number of response alternatives.

Response repetitions aid performance when a task repeats but impair performance when a task switches. Although this interaction is robust, theoretical accounts remain controversial. Here, we used an un-cued, predictable task-switching paradigm with univalent targets to explore whether a simple bias to switch the response when the task switches can explain the interaction. In Experiment 1A (n = 40), we replicated the basic interaction in a two-choice task. In Experiment 1B (n = 60), we observed the same interaction in a three-choice task, wherein a bias to switch the response when the task switches cannot prime a specific alternative response because both remaining response alternatives are equally likely. Exploratory comparisons revealed a larger interaction between task repetition and response repetition in the three-choice task than in the two-choice task for mean response time (RT) and the opposite pattern for mean error rate (ER). Critically, in the three-choice task, response-repetition costs in task switches were significant in both RT and ER. Since a bias to switch the response cannot prime a specific response alternative in a three-choice task, we conclude that such a bias cannot account for response-repetition costs in task-switch trials.

Partial repetition costs index a mixture of binding and signaling.

People respond more slowly in two-choice tasks when either a previous stimulus feature or the previous response repeats in partial repetition trials than when (a) both repeat in complete repetition trials or (b) both alternate in complete alternation trials. The binding account posits that such partial repetition costs index a memory-retrieval conflict, which occurs because partial repetition trials trigger the retrieval of a previous stimulus feature or response that conflicts with a current stimulus feature or response. However, such costs may additionally reflect a simple decision-making heuristic that uses the repetition or alternation of a previous stimulus feature as a "signal" to bias response selection toward a repetition or an alternation of the previous response. To determine whether signaling contributes to partial repetition costs, we employed a four-choice task. Here, a stimulus feature repetition still signals a response repetition, but a stimulus feature alternation does not signal which of the three remaining responses to make. Consistent with an influence of signaling, we sometimes observed complete repetition advantages without complete alternation advantages. Exploratory analyses further revealed that partial repetition costs measured more broadly were smaller in the four-choice task than in a matched two-choice task. These findings suggest that partial repetition costs index a mixture of binding and signaling.

Assessment of wakefulness during awake craniotomy to predict intraoperative language performance.

OBJECTIVE: Maximal safe tumor resection in language areas of the brain relies on a patient's ability to perform intraoperative language tasks. Assessing the performance of these tasks during awake craniotomies allows the neurosurgeon to identify and preserve brain regions that are critical for language processing. However, receiving sedation and analgesia just prior to experiencing an awake craniotomy may reduce a patient's wakefulness, leading to transient language and/or cognitive impairments that do not completely subside before language testing begins. At present, the degree to which wakefulness influences intraoperative language task performance is unclear. Therefore, the authors sought to determine whether any of 5 brief measures of wakefulness predicts such performance during awake craniotomies for glioma resection. METHODS: The authors recruited 21 patients with dominant hemisphere low- and high-grade gliomas. Each patient performed baseline wakefulness measures in addition to picture-naming and text-reading language tasks 24 hours before undergoing an awake craniotomy. The patients performed these same tasks again in the operating room following the cessation of anesthesia medications. The authors then conducted statistical analyses to investigate potential relationships between wakefulness measures and language task performance. RESULTS: Relative to baseline, performance on 3 of the 4 objective wakefulness measures (rapid counting, button pressing, and vigilance) declined in the operating room. Moreover, these declines appeared in the complete absence of self-reported changes in arousal. Performance on language tasks similarly declined in the intraoperative setting, with patients experiencing greater declines in picture naming than in text reading. Finally, performance declines on rapid counting and vigilance wakefulness tasks predicted performance declines on the picture-naming task. CONCLUSIONS: Current subjective methods for assessing wakefulness during awake craniotomies may be insufficient. The administration of objective measures of wakefulness just prior to language task administration may help to ensure that patients are ready for testing. It may also allow neurosurgeons to identify patients who are at risk for poor intraoperative performance.

Succumbing to bottom-up biases on task choice predicts increased switch costs in the voluntary task switching paradigm.

Bottom-up biases are widely thought to influence task choice in the voluntary task switching paradigm. Definitive support for this hypothesis is lacking, however, because task choice and task performance are usually confounded. We therefore revisited this hypothesis using a paradigm in which task choice and task performance are temporally separated. As predicted, participants tended to choose the task that was primed by bottom-up biases. Moreover, such choices were linked to increased switch costs during subsequent task performance. These findings provide compelling evidence that bottom-up biases influence voluntary task choice. They also suggest that succumbing to such biases reflects a reduction of top-down control that persists to influence upcoming task performance.