No-go trials in task switching: effects on the task-set and task-space level

Scheil, Juliane; Kleinsorge, Thomas · 2022 · Crossref

DOI: 10.1007/s00426-021-01566-7

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates how no-go trials (trials requiring response inhibition) influence task-switching performance, specifically focusing on $n-2$ repetition costs, a standard marker for inhibitory processes. While previous research suggested that withholding a response prevents task-set activation, this study examined whether binding no-go trials to only one of three tasks affects inhibition at the task-set level rather than the response level. The authors hypothesized that associating a specific task with potential inhibition would enhance its salience, leading to stronger activation and subsequent inhibition. Two experiments were conducted using a task-switching paradigm where participants judged stimuli based on size, color, or shape. In Experiment 1, no-go trials were associated with only one task, occurring in 50% of trials for that task. Participants performed 18 blocks of 72 trials. In Experiment 2, the design was modified to manipulate participants' foreknowledge; no-go trials were validly cued by a distinct visual cue, allowing researchers to distinguish between trials where participants could predict the need for inhibition and those where they could not. Reaction times (RTs) and error rates were analyzed, focusing on sequences where the current task repeated the task from two trials prior ($n-2$). The results demonstrated that $n-2$ repetition costs were significantly elevated when the task relevant in trial $n-2$ was the one associated with no-go trials, regardless of whether trial $n-2$ was actually a go or no-go trial. Conversely, no $n-2$ costs were observed for the other two tasks. In Experiment 2, this effect persisted even when participants could reliably predict whether a no-go trial would occur, indicating the effect was not driven by strategic response preparation. Additionally, participants responded slower overall when the current task was the no-go-associated task. Analyses of competitor rule suppression showed that while suppression occurred, it was not modulated by the no-go condition, suggesting the effect operates at a higher level of control. The findings indicate that binding no-go trials to a specific task shifts the balance of activation and inhibition for the entire task space, not just for individual trials. The enhanced salience of the no-go task leads to higher activation levels, which in turn triggers stronger inhibition during switching. This dissociates the effect from response-level inhibition, supporting the view that inhibition processes in task switching are influenced by the global task environment and task-set properties. The study concludes that the need for potential inhibition becomes part of the task set, affecting performance even when no response is withheld.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• task switching