Task-switch costs subsequent to cue-only trials

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Fiona Carr, Carmen Horne, and Brigitta Toth for assistance with data collection. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Funding information The authors would like to thank the School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, for contributing funding for participant payments.Peer reviewedPostprin

Ammonia oxidation is not required for growth of Group 1.1c soil Thaumarchaeota

© FEMS 2015. FUNDING EBW is funded by Centre for Genome Enabled Biology and Medicine, University of Aberdeen.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Preparing a task is sufficient to generate a subsequent task-switch cost affecting task performance

This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number ES/R005613/1] and was previously presented at a meeting of the Experimental Psychology Society (Bournemouth, UK, July 2019). For the purpose of open access, the authors have applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising. The data are available at https://reshare.ukdataservice.ac.uk/854364/. Analysis code and research materials are available at https://osf.io/d3r8z/. The preregistration document is available at https://aspredicted.org/t4vx2.pdf. We would like to thank Madhuri Thakur, Milena Gimadieva and Vasilena Voynikova for assistance with data collection.Peer reviewedPostprin

Task cues lead to item-level backward inhibition with univalent stimuli and responses

Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.Peer reviewedPostprin

The effect of performing versus preparing a task on the subsequent switch cost

Open Access via Springer Compact Agreement. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Suzanne Wilson for help with data collection (Expt. 1). Data were analysed and graphed using R (R Core Team, 2013). R packages used were as follows: afex (Singmann, Bolker, Westfall, and Aust, 2017); BayesFactor (Morey and Rouder, 2018); dplyr (Wickham and Francois, 2016); ggplot2 (Wickham, 2009); reshape (Wickham, 2007); tidyr (Wickham, 2017). Funding Experiments 2 and 3 were funded by a small grant from the Experimental Psychology Society, which provided bursaries for KK and AR as well as participant payments.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Serogroups of Dichelobacter nodosus, the cause of footrot in sheep, are randomly distributed across England

We present the largest and most representative study of the serological diversity of Dichelobacter nodosus in England. D. nodosus causes footrot and is one of the top five globally important diseases of sheep. The commercial vaccine, containing nine serogroups, has low efficacy compared with bivalent vaccines. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence and distribution of serogroups of D. nodosus in England to elucidate whether a bivalent vaccine could protect the national flock. Farmers from 164 flocks submitted eight interdigital swabs from eight, preferably diseased, sheep. All serogroups, A–I, were detected by PCR in 687/1150 D. nodosus positive swabs, with a prevalence of 2.6–69.3% of positive swabs per serogroup. There was a median of two serogroups per flock (range 0–6). Serogroups were randomly distributed between, but clustered within, flocks, with 50 combinations of serogroups across flocks. H and B were the most prevalent serogroups, present in > 60% of flocks separately but in only 27% flocks together. Consequently, a bivalent vaccine targeting these two serogroups would protect 27% of flocks fully (if only H and B present) and partially, if more serogroups were present in the flock. We conclude that one bivalent vaccine would not protect the national flock against footrot and, with 50 combinations of serogroups in flocks, flock-specific vaccines are necessary

Disclosing an autism diagnosis improves ratings of candidate performance in employment interviews

Employment interviews can be challenging for autistic people. In addition to standard interview procedures often being inaccessible, features associated with autism (including atypical emotional expression, eye-contact, and gestures) may lead to negative first impressions. Research using vignettes and ‘thin slices’ of communication indicate that perceptions of an autistic individual can be improved when their autism diagnosis is disclosed. Here, we examined the impact of diagnostic disclosure on judgements of autistic adults undergoing an entire mock employment interview. A total of 119 participants (known as ‘raters’) watched a video of an autistic candidate’s mock employment interview, after which they provided overall impressions of the candidate on factors such as confidence, motivation, and knowledgeability. Raters were either (1) unaware of the interviewee’s diagnosis, (2) aware of their diagnosis, or (3) aware of their diagnosis and provided with information about autism. Results indicate that diagnostic disclosure improved perceptions of autistic candidates across all dimensions compared to when raters were unaware of their diagnosis. The provision of additional information about the diagnosis did not further improve ratings. The findings have important implications for employers and autistic people, who should consider the potential impact of diagnostic disclosure prior to interviewing for a role

Perceptions of autistic and non-autistic adults in employment interviews:The role of impression management

Background: Social communication and interaction differences can make employment interviews particularly challenging for autistic people, who may be less able to modulate their Impression Management (IM). This makes autism a relevant test case of the extent to which behavioral IM influences perceptions of job candidates.Method: Two studies are reported. In Study 1, lay-raters watched a video of autistic and non-autistic mock candidates’ interviews, and assessed their verbal, non-verbal, and para-verbal behaviors, and likelihood of social approach/avoidance. In Study 2, the presence of behavioral cues was manipulated by using either the interview videos (behavioral cues present) or transcripts (cues absent). Employers rated their overall impression of the candidates (e.g., perceived confidence, conscientiousness, competence, communication skills, etc).Results: In study 1, autistic candidates were perceived as having a more monotonous tone of voice, being less composed and focused, and displaying less natural eye contact and gestures than their non-autistic counterparts, and received lower ratings for likelihood of social approach. For non-autistic interviewees, relationships were also found between ratings for verbal, para-verbal, and non-verbal behaviors, and social awkwardness and attractiveness. In study 2, non-autistic (but not autistic) interviewees received higher ratings of their confidence and communication skills when assessed by video than by transcript, but this advantage was not found for the autistic candidates.Conclusions: Results indicate that observers may use different information when evaluating autistic compared with non-autistic interviewees, possibly due to qualitative differences in behavior. Implications of different behavioral presentations in autistic candidates are discussed, including the potential benefits of using transcripts or more structured interviews to enable recruiters to focus on interviewee answers, whilst being less influenced by non-verbal and para-verbal behaviors

Investigating task preparation and task performance as triggers of the backward inhibition effect

Backward inhibition is posited to aid task switching by counteracting the tendency to repeat a recent task. Evidence that factors such as cue transparency affect backward inhibition seems to imply that it is generated during task preparation, making its absence following trials on which a prepared task was not performed (nogo trials) surprising. However, the nogo method used in previous studies might have prevented detection of preparation-driven effects. We used a truncated-trial method instead, omitting stages of a trial with no need for a nogo signal. In Experiment 1, an n – 2 repetition cost (suggested to indicate backward inhibition) followed trials truncated after response selection, indicating that response execution is not necessary to trigger backward inhibition. In Experiments 2 and 3, no n – 2 repetition cost was obtained following trials truncated after cue presentation. To ensure some task preparation on cue-only trials, Experiment 4 used a double-registration procedure where participants responded to the task cue and the target on each trial. In contrast to Experiments 2 and 3, a small n – 2 repetition cost followed trials truncated after cue responses, affecting cue responses on the current trial. In addition, the n – 2 repetition cost was increased at cue responses and became evident at target responses when the preceding trial also involved a target response. These results imply that backward inhibition might be generated by processes occurring up to and including a cue response, affecting subsequent cue responses, as well as during task performance itself, affecting subsequent cue and target responses

Preparing a task is sufficient to generate a subsequent task-switch cost affecting task performance

This study investigated the nature of switch costs after trials on which the cued task had been either only prepared (cue-only trials) or both prepared and performed (completed trials). Previous studies have found that task-switch costs occur following cue-only trials, demonstrating that preparing – without performing – a task is sufficient to produce a subsequent switch cost. However, it is not clear whether switch costs after these different types of trial reflect an impact of task switching upon task preparation or task performance on the current trial. The present study examined this question using a double-registration procedure with both cue-only and completed trials. Participants responded to both task-cue and target stimuli. In cue responses, a cost of switching task cues (cue-switch cost) but not of switching tasks (task-switch cost) followed both cue-only and completed trials. In target responses, a task-switch cost but no cue-switch cost followed both cue-only trials and completed trials, and this task-switch cost was larger following completed than cue-only trials. The presence of the task-switch cost in target responses following cue-only trials indicates a specific impact of previous preparation upon task performance, and the increased size of this cost following completed trials indicates an additional impact of previous performance. Together, these results suggest that both task preparation and task performance contribute to the subsequent task-switch cost affecting task performance