If it were conflict itself that drives the post-interruption selection costs then it is not obvious why this type of conflict would not counteract the Sunitinib cost asymmetry. Thus, possibly there is something special
about the conflict from a dominant task that produces particularly strong memory traces, while conflict from the endogenous task is less effective in this regard. However, there may be a simpler account. While performing the non-dominant task the maintenance mode is much less effective in shielding processing from the competing-task conflict than when performing the dominant task. Thus, for the non-dominant task, participants experience conflict both on post-interruption and maintenance trials whereas for the dominant task they experience conflict only on post-interruption trials, whereas conflict is effectively blocked on maintenance trials. click here In other words, the mere number of trials with high, experienced conflict is much
smaller for the dominant than for the non-dominant task. Thus, maybe it is simply the greater frequency of experienced conflict from the exogenous to the endogenous task than from the endogenous to the exogenous task that drives the asymmetric cost. In Experiment 2, we attempted to test this frequency-of-experienced-conflict hypothesis. The critical condition was identical to the experimental condition from Experiment 1 where conflict could occur for both the dominant and the non-dominant task, except for one critical change: Conflict from the exogenous task while
performing the endogenous task was limited to post-interruption trials and never occurred on maintenance trials. Ideally, this should mimic the situation for the dominant task, where experienced conflict is also limited to post-interruption trials. Thus, if the frequency-of-experienced-conflict hypothesis is correct, we should see a marked reduction of the cost asymmetry in this condition Palbociclib compared to a situation in which conflict can occur on all trials. We used in this experiment two control conditions, which also allowed us to replicate the central results from Experiment 1. The first was the exo/endo condition from Experiment 1, for which we again expect the fullblown cost asymmetry. The second was the exo/endo-noconflict condition, for which we again expect to see only a small asymmetry. For the third condition in which non-dominant task conflict was limited to post-interruption trials, we expect performance to be similar to exo/endo-noconflict condition, assuming the frequency-of-experienced-conflict hypothesis is correct. If, however there is something special about conflict suffered from the dominant task that is responsible for the interfering memory traces then the pattern for the new condition with exogenous conflict limited to post-interruption trials, should be more similar to the standard, exo/endo condition. A total of 60 students of the University of Oregon participated in exchange for course credits in this experiment.