Again, this interaction was not significantly modulated by the task mapping, F(1, 38) = .51. As in the previous experiments, we checked whether the asymmetry pattern persisted across the entire

block and found a numerical reduction of the asymmetry effect from 145 to 108 ms, that however was not significant, F(1, 38) = 1.81, MSE = 7780.39, p < .15. 4 To conclude, with the present results Selleck Ibrutinib we cannot rule out the presence of associative learning effects between consecutive tasks (e.g., Koch, 2001). Small effects of this kind may have been difficult to detect with our design. However, the results provide little reason to suspect that associative links between tasks play a major role in producing the interruption-specific, cost-asymmetry pattern. Therefore, they strengthen our structural hypothesis, namely that interruptions enforce an updating operation in the AZD5363 mouse course of which interference through LTM traces can enter the selection

process. Different from the preceding experiments, we presented the interruption-task stimuli far from the screen’s center to avoid any kind of bias favoring the central cue after an interruption. The qualitative pattern of effects was very similar to the one obtained in precious experiments. Therefore it is unlikely that the positioning of the interruption task on the screen played a major role in the pattern of costs. One limitation of our results thus far is that we used interruption tasks which themselves were fairly Baricitinib complex and required considerable attentional control. Maybe the pattern of post-interruption costs we had observed can be explained in terms of an after-effect of immediately preceding, high control demands. Therefore, in this experiment, we used a variant of a spatial Stroop task requiring manual key responses as interruption events that allowed us to directly manipulate control demands. Specifically, one group of subjects performed

the interruption task with low-demand instructions, where correct key responses were indicated through the dominant dimension (i.e., arrow directions). The second group of subjects performed the task with high-demand instructions. Here, correct key presses were indicated through arbitrary color-key assignment rules and the arrow direction produced potentially conflicting information. Also, different from the preceding experiments, the interruption events were not just single trials, but followed the same probabilistic “switch” rules as the primary tasks. Specifically, no matter what the current task type, there was a p = .2 probability that the next trial switched to the other task possible in that block. This also allowed us to examine to what degree the pattern of post-interruption costs depended in any critical manner on the number of intervening interruption events/trials. A total of 40 students of the University of Oregon participated in exchange for course credits in this experiment.