Changing internal constraints on action: the role of backward inhibition.

By Ulrich Mayr, S. Keele. Journal of experimental psychology. General, 2000

727 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0e6bd9d904782cebd6469348d908ca2071765944

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

Citations in the corpus

Is there an age deficit in the selection of mental sets? (2001, methodology): “Generally speaking these processes should be responsible for ensuring that the adequate mental set is in place as long as necessary, but not longer (e.g., Mayr & Keele, 2000).”
Where is the bilingual advantage in task-switching? (2013, methodology): “…from the so-called n 2 repetition cost – slower response latencies returning to a recently performed task after one trial requiring a different task (i.e. ABA sequence) compared to returning to a task not recently performed (CBA sequence) (see Koch et al., 2010; Mayr, 2007; Mayr & Keele, 2000).”
How positive affect modulates cognitive control: reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. (2004, unknown): “…it is well documented that switching from one task to another is associated with RT costs (e.g., Allport, Styles, & Hsieh, 1994; De Jong, 2000; Mayr & Keele, 2000; Meiran, Chorev, & Sapir, 2000; Rogers & Monsell, 1995; Sohn & Carlson, 2000), Experiment 1 extends this finding in showing that…”
Language switching in picture naming: What asymmetric switch costs (do not) tell us about inhibition in bilingual speech planning (2013, methodology): “Based on studies using the n-2 paradigm (Mayr & Keele, 2000), Philipp and colleagues argue that there are indices of inhibition independent of language switch asymmetries.”
The role of prefrontal cortex in cognitive control and executive function (2021, background): “Similarly, mental set shifting tasks could be characterized as requiring inhibition to ignore information irrelevant to the current task set [161], as well as to suppress the no-longer-relevant task set when switching sets [162].”
Accessibility from active and fulfilled goals (2005, background): “‘‘Clearing up’’ the mental system from such constructs becomes highly functional (see also Gollwitzer, 1999; Kuhl, 1983; Mayr & Keele, 2000 ).”
Adult age differences in goal activation and goal maintenance (2001, background): “De Jong (2000) suggested that a switch between tasks may require not only activating the now relevant task set but also actively disengaging the prior task set (see also Mayr & Keele, 2000).”
Inhibitory processes in language switching: Evidence from switching language-defined response sets (2007, methodology): “This was done by studying an “n-2 repetition cost” (see, eg, Arbuthnott & Frank, 2000 ; Mayr & Keele, 2000 ; Schuch & Koch, 2003 ).”
Task-switching and long-term priming: role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. (2003, background): “Another possible mechanism contributing to the residual shift costs is ''backward inhibition'' (Mayr & Keele, 2000).”
Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. (2001, background): “Then the occurrence of such partial matches could make it more difficult to disable the preceding task's rules, thereby prolonging the rule-activation stage (Mayr & Keele, 2000).”
Between Persistence and Flexibility: The Yin and Yang of Action Control (2015, background): “…though the duration of establishing a new control state has been considered to depend on the number of to-be-changed control parameters (Logan & (Mayr & Keele, 2000), most approaches implicitly or explicitly assume that the remains of previous control states are fully eliminated before the new…”
Task switching: interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. (2010, background): “Nevertheless, some studies found both a switch cost and a lag-2 repetition cost (Mayr, 2001, 2002; Mayr & Keele, 2000), whereas others found only one of these effects consistently (Arbuthnott & Frank, 2000; Arbuthnott & Woodward, 2002).”
ARTICLE WITH PEER COMMENTARIES AND RESPONSE Helping children apply their knowledge to their behavior on a dimension-switching task (2003, background): “Children’s well-laid memorial preparation is now in danger; they must inhibit the pull to focus on the previously relevant dimension and to act according to the previously relevant rules (Allport et al., 1994; Allport & Wylie, 1999, 2000; Mayr & Keele, 2000 ).”
Neuroimaging studies of shifting attention: a meta-analysis (2004, background): “Shifting, for example, may require participants to disengage attention in some manner from a previous task and/or resolve interference from previous stimuli or task sets (e.g., Allport et al., 1994; Mayr, 2003; Mayr and Keele, 2000; Rougier and O'Reilly, 2002).”
In Opposition to Inhibition (2003, background): “In line with this, Mayr and Keele (2000) had participants evaluate the stimulus along one of three dimensions (movement, orientation, or color –”