The effect of N-3 on N-2 repetition costs in task switching

N-2 task repetition cost is a response time and error cost returning to a task recently performed after one intervening trial (i.e., an ABA task sequence) compared with returning to a task not recently performed (i.e., a CBA task sequence). This cost is considered a robust measure of inhibitory control during task switching. The present article reports a novel sequential effect of n-2 task repetitions when trial n-3 is taken into consideration. In particular, performance is better in trials preceded by an n-2 repetition than in trials preceded by an n-2 switch. That is, performance is better in BABA sequences (where trial n-1 was an n-2 repetition) than in CABA sequences (where trial n-1 was an n-2 switch). Likewise, performance is better in BCBA (where trial n-1 was an n-2 repetition) than in ACBA or DCBA sequences (where trial n-1 was an n-2 switch). Evidence for this new n-3 effect is provided by a mini meta-analysis of a set of published data, as well as 2 new experiments applying a different paradigm. We suggest that this new effect reflects trial-by-trial modulation of cognitive control: Task conflict is higher in n-2 repetitions than in n-2 switches; therefore, cognitive control is increased in trials following n-2 repetitions, leading to improved performance. This facilitating effect of previous task conflict is discussed with respect to current theories on cognitive control

Inhibition in Task Switching: The Reliability of the N-2 Repetition Cost

The n-2 repetition cost seen in task switching is the effect of slower response times performing a recently completed task (e.g. an ABA sequence) compared to performing a task that was not recently completed (e.g. a CBA sequence). This cost is thought to reflect cognitive inhibition of task representations and has been well replicated (Koch, Gade, Schuch, & Philipp, 2010). As such, the n-2 repetition cost has started to be used as a measure of individual differences in inhibitory control (e.g. Whitmer & Banich, 2007); however, the reliability of this measure has not been investigated in a systematic manner. The current study addressed this important issue. Seventy-two participants performed three task switching paradigms; participants were also assessed on rumination traits and processing speed-measures of individual differences potentially modulating the n-2 repetition cost. We found significant n-2 repetition costs for each paradigm. However, split-half reliability tests revealed that this cost was not reliable at the individual-difference level. Neither rumination tendencies nor processing speed predicted this cost. We conclude that the n-2 repetition cost is not reliable as a measure of individual differences in inhibitory control

The effect of alcohol hangover on choice response time

The effect of alcohol hangover on cognitive processing has received little attention. We explored the effect of alcohol hangover on choice response time (RT), a dominant dependent variable (DV) in cognitive research. Prior research of the effect of hangover on RT has produced mixed findings; all studies reviewed relied exclusively on estimates of central tendency (e.g. mean RT), which has limited information value. Here we present novel analytical methods by going beyond mean RT analysis. Specifically, we examined performance in hangover conditions (n=31) across the whole RT distribution by fitting ex-Gaussian models to participant data, providing a formal description of the RT distribution. This analysis showed detriments to performance under hangover conditions at the slower end of the RT distribution and increased RT variance under hangover conditions. We also fitted an explicit mathematical process model of choice RT – the diffusion model – which estimates parameters reflecting psychologically-meaningful processes underlying choice RT. This analysis showed that hangover reduced information processing efficiency during response selection, and increased response caution; changes in these parameters reflect hangover affecting core decisional-components of RT performance. The implications of the data as well as the methods used for hangover research are discussed

A critical analysis of alcohol hangover research methodology for surveys or studies of effects on cognition

Rationale: Alcohol hangover may be defined as an adverse effect of heavy alcohol consumption present after sufficient time has elapsed for the alcohol to have been eliminated from the blood. Understanding how hangover may impair performance is important for public safety; yet, there is relatively little hangover research. This paper outlines good practice for future studies. Objectives: This paper presents a critical analysis of hangover methodology for surveys or studies of effects on cognition with human subjects and provides suggestions for optimum research practice for laboratory-based and naturalistic alcohol hangover studies. Results: Four hangover symptom scales have been developed and subjected to psychometric testing. For retrospective assessment, we recommend the Hangover Symptoms Scale (HSS) or the Alcohol Hangover Severity Scale (AHSS). For concurrent assessment of hangover symptoms, we recommend either the Acute Hangover Scale (AHS), the five-item version of the HSS, or the AHSS. In research aiming to assess the cognitive effects of alcohol hangover, we suggest focusing on the cognitive domains of attention, memory and executive function, and we specify a number of tests within these cognitive domains that are likely to be sensitive to any decrements due to hangover. Finally, we argue that naturalistic studies should assess biological markers to improve the accuracy of estimates of alcohol consumption. Specifically, we recommend the assessment of ethyl glucuronide (EtG) for this purpose. Conclusions: Recommendations are made with respect to assessing hangover symptoms, cognitive effects of hangover and biological markers of alcohol consumption

Exploring the impact of mindfulness on false-memory susceptibility

Wilson et al. (2015) presented data from three well-powered experiments suggesting that a brief mindfulness induction can increase false memory susceptibility. However, we had concerns about some of the methodology, including whether mind-wandering is the best control condition for brief mindfulness inductions. We report here the findings from a preregistered double-blind randomised controlled trial designed to replicate and extend the findings. 287 participants underwent 15-minute mindfulness or mind-wandering inductions or completed a join-the-dots task, before being presented with lists of words related to nonpresented critical lures followed by free recall and recognition tasks. There was no evidence for an effect of state of mind on correct or false recall or recognition. Furthermore, manipulation checks revealed that mindfulness and mind-wandering inductions activated overlapping states of mind. Exploratory analyses provide some support for mindfulness increasing false memory, but it appears that mind-wandering may not be the right control for brief mindfulness research