Effects of anxiety on task switching:

Evidence from the mixed antisaccade

task
Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, Sep
!!" #y Ansari, $ahereh %, &erakshan, Na'anin,
(ichards, Anne
According to the attentional control theory of anxiety (Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, &
Calvo, 2007), anxiety i!airs !erforance on cognitive tasks that involve the shifting
f"nction of #orking eory$ %his hy!othesis #as tested "sing a ixed antisaccade
!aradig, in #hich !artici!ants !erfored single&task and ixed&task versions of the
!aradig$ %he single task involved the co!letion of se!arate 'locks of anti& and
!rosaccade trials, #hereas in the ixed task, !artici!ants co!leted anti& and !rosaccade
trials in a rando order #ithin 'locks$ Analysis of s#itch costs sho#ed that high&anxio"s
individ"als did not exhi'it the coonly re!orted !aradoxical i!roveent in saccade
latency, #hereas lo#&anxio"s individ"als did$ %he findings are disc"ssed #ithin the
frae#ork of attentional control theory$
%here is 'ehavioral evidence to sho# that anxiety is associated #ith an attentional 'ias
for threat&related aterial (see (ar&)ai, *ay, +ergain, (akerans,ranen'"rg, &
van -.endoorn, 2007, for a revie#)$ /ecent ne"roiaging #ork has also sho#n that
anxiety selectively facilitates early !rocessing of threat and enhances distracti'ility to
task&irrelevant sti"li$ According to (isho! (20070 see also (isho!, D"ncan, (rett, &
*a#rence, 2001), anxiety is associated #ith enhanced aygdala activation and red"ced
recr"itent of !refrontal cortical areas (es!ecially the dorsal lateral !refrontal cortex
2D*+3C4 and the ventral lateral !refrontal cortex 25*+3C4) that are heavily involved in
to!&do#n reg"lation of attention, es!ecially #hen attentional foc"s is re6"ired for
efficient task !erforance$ (oth 'ehavioral and ne"roiaging #ork has sho#n that
anxiety is associated #ith adverse effects on cognitive !erforance, es!ecially on tasks
that re6"ire attentional foc"s$ 7n an atte!t to ex!lain the role of attentional control in
anxiety and cognitive !erforance, the attentional control theory of anxiety #as !"t
for#ard 'y Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, and Calvo (2007)$
%he attentional control theory (Eysenck et al$, 2007) is a a8or develo!ent of
!rocessing efficiency theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 9::2)$ (ased on (addeley;s (9:<=0 see
also Derry'erry & /eed, 2002) #orking eory odel, the theory clais that anxiety
disr"!ts the 'alance 'et#een #hat Cor'etta and Sh"lan (2002) disting"ished as the
sti"l"s&driven (involved in 'otto&"! control, infl"enced 'y salient environental
sti"li) and the goaldirected (involved in to!&do#n control, infl"enced 'y the c"rrent
goal) systes$ %hese t#o systes are generally tho"ght to interact in their f"nctioning
(+ashler, >ohnston, & /"thr"ff, 2009), '"t anxiety is 'elieved to increase the infl"ence of
the sti"l"s&driven syste over the goaldirected !rocesses, red"cing attentional control$
+redictions of the attentional control theory are 'ased on a f"ndaental distinction 'y the
!rocessing efficiency theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 9::2) 'et#een !erforance
effectiveness and !erforance efficiency$ Effectiveness refers to an individ"al;s
co!etence in doing a task (eas"red 'y res!onse acc"racy), and efficiency refers to the
ao"nt of !rocessing reso"rces invested in doing the task (eas"red 'y res!onse
latency)$ %he theory !redicts that anxiety has a greater i!act on !erforance efficiency
of tasks re6"iring the inhi'ition (?one;s a'ility to deli'erately inhi'it doinant, a"toatic,
or !re!otent res!onses #hen necessary?0 @iyake et al$, 2000, !$ A7) andBor the shifting
(?shifting 'ack and forth 'et#een "lti!le tasks?0 @iyake et al$, 2000, !$ AA) f"nctions of
the central exec"tive$ 7n inhi'ition, attentional control !revents attentional reso"rces fro
'eing allocated to task&irrelevant sti"li, and in shifting, attentional control is "sed in a
!ositive #ay to allocate attentional reso"rces to exec"te the task relevant to the c"rrent
goal$
A general ass"!tion of the attentional control theory (Eysenck et al$, 2007) is that
attentional control involves the "se of the !rocessing reso"rces of the central exec"tive$
)o#ever, an alternative !ro!osal is that there are rather s!ecific reso"rce !ools and that
those involved in attentional control differ fro those involved in other !rocessing
f"nctions of the central exec"tive (Cickens, 9:<1)$ %he ass"!tion #ithin attentional
control theory is ore !arsionio"s than the one 'ased on a "lti!lereso"rce a!!roach$
)o#ever, it is acce!ted that f"rther research #ill 'e re6"ired to el"cidate the "nderlying
echaniss involved$
Derakshan, Ansari, )ansard, Shoker, and Eysenck (in !ress) exained the relationshi!
'et#een anxiety and inhi'itory !rocesses, "sing the antisaccade !aradig ()allet, 9:7<)$
7n this task, to!&do#n attentional control is exercised to s"!!ress a reflexive saccade
to#ard an a'r"!t !eri!heral sti"l"s (i$e$, inhi'it) and to generate a volitional saccade to
its irror !osition (antisaccade)$ +erforance on this task is co!ared #ith that on the
!rosaccade task, #hich eliinates the conflict 'et#een reflexive and volitional !rocesses
'y re6"iring !artici!ants to look at the a'r"!t c"e #hen it a!!ears$ As #ell as aking
ore directional errors, individ"als are generally slo#er to ake a correct saccade a#ay
fro the a'r"!t sti"li on antisaccade trials, as co!ared #ith !rosaccade trials (see
)"tton & Ettinger, 200=, for a revie#)$ 7n the antisaccade task, co!etition occ"rs
'et#een reflexive saccades (!re!otent res!onse) and the antisaccade (volitional res!onse)
(@assen, 2001)$ %o !redict correct antisaccade !erforance, Ettinger et al$ (200<)
identified s!ecific 'rain regions involved in attentional control$ 7n a ne"roiaging st"dy,
they fo"nd enhanced activation in the s"!raarginal gys, D*+3C, and 5*+3C on
correct antisaccade trials and inter!reted the activation in these areas as indicative of a
a8or involveent in the inhi'ition of reflexive saccades$ 3"rtherore, it #as fo"nd that
the D*+3C and the 5*+3C #ere also involved in volitional saccade generation
Derakshan et al$ (in !ress) re!orted that high&anxio"s ()A) individ"als had longer correct
antisaccade latencies than did lo#&anxio"s (*A) individ"als '"t that the t#o gro"!s did
not differ on the !rosaccade task, s"ggesting that anxiety is associated #ith the inhi'itory
co!onent of attentional control$ %here #as no difference 'et#een the t#o gro"!s in
ters of saccadic error rate$ %hese res"lts indicated that anxiety affects efficiency and not
effectiveness$ Diven the involveent of the D*+3C and the 5*+3C in correct
antisaccade !erforance, it is reasona'le to ass"e that these areas #ill 'e ost affected
'y anxiety and its od"lation in attentional control, as assessed 'y the antisaccade task$
S!ecifically, these !refrontal areas have 'een arg"ed to 'e involved not only in inhi'ition,
'"t also in f"nctions s"ch as the re!resentation of task set #hen t#o or ore tasks
co!ete #ith one another for exec"tion (Daravan, )ester, @"r!hy, 3ass'ender, & ,elly,
200=0 )erath, ,ling'"rg, Eo"ng, A"nts, & /oland, 2009)$ Altho"gh the !resent st"dy
did not "se f@/7 ethods, the involveent of these areas in antisaccade !erforance
allo#s a relia'le inter!retation of saccadic eye oveents as an index of attentional
control$ %he 'asic ass"!tions are in line #ith the !redictions of attentional control
theory (Eysenck et al$, 2007)$
%he ai of the !resent st"dy #as to test the theoretical !rediction that anxiety affects
efficient task&s#itching !erforance, #hich involves reconfig"ration of task sets
(!araeters associated #ith each task) in #orking eory to allo# exec"tion of the task
a!!ro!riate to the c"rrent goal (e$g$, /"'instein, @eyer, & Evans, 20090 for a revie#, see
@onsell, 200F)$ %he vie# that anxiety affects task&s#itching !erforance is 'ased on
t#o ain ass"!tions$ 3irst, according to Eysenck et al$ (2007), anxiety affects
!erforance on tasks that involve ra!id shifting 'et#een s"ccessive task sets (aintained
and "!dated in #orking eory) d"e to the adverse effect of anxiety on to!&do#n
attentional control (Eysenck, +ayne, & Derakshan, 200A0 )arris & diing, 200F)$
%he second ass"!tion relates to the i!ortant role of #orking eory ca!acity in
s"ccessf"l task set reconfig"ration$ @ore s!ecifically, the a'ility to s"ccessf"lly select
and exec"te the goal&relevant task set (#hile inhi'iting or terinating the irrelevant)
re6"ires efficient "se of #orking eory reso"rces to exercise to!&do#n attentional
control ((addeley, Chincotta, & Adla, 20090 )ester & Daravan, 200A0 ,ane, (leckley,
Con#ay, & Engle, 20090 @eiran, 9::=)$ Daravan et al$ (200=), "sing f@/7, fo"nd that
the D*+3C had a s"!ervisory role in #orking eory f"nctions, s"ch as re!resentation
of task set, sti"l"s a!!raisal, and res!onse selection$ (ehavioral data ()ester &
Daravan, 200A, Ex!erient 9) sho#ed that increasing the n"'er of ites to 'e held in
#orking eory decreased the s!eed at #hich !artici!ants s#itched attention fro a
!riary #orking eory task to a secondary decision&aking task$ %his s"ggests that
diinished #orking eory ca!acity decreases the efficiency #ith #hich attentional
control can 'e exerted
%o test this !rediction systeatically, #e ado!ted the ixed antisaccade task to exaine
the effect of anxiety on task&s#itching !erforance$ %his !aradig re6"ires !artici!ants
to randoly s#itch 'et#een anti& and !rosaccade tasks in the ixed&task 'lock, #hereas
in the singletask 'lock, they !erfored either the antisaccade or the !rosaccade task
se!arately$ S#itching !erforance is assessed 'y co!aring !erforance on trials in
#hich !artici!ants !erfor one task re!eatedly (in the single&task 'lock, or re!eat trials in
the ixed&task 'lock) #ith trials in #hich they are re6"ired to randoly alternate
'et#een t#o tasks (ixed&task 'lock at a generalBglo'al level or s#itch trials in this
'lock at a s!ecificBlocal level0 see, e$g$, ,ray, 200=)$
%here is a !aradoxical i!roveent in antisaccade !erforance #hen !artici!ants are
re6"ired to s#itch 'et#een anti& and !rosaccade trials, as co!ared #ith re!eat trials$ 3or
exa!le, Cherkasova, @anoach, 7ntriligator, and (arton (2002) exained resid"al s#itch
cost in a randoi.ed ixed antisaccade task (co!aring latencies and error rates 'et#een
the s#itch and the re!eat trials, in the ixed&task 'lock)$ %hey o'served red"ced
antisaccade latencies and greater error rates in the s#itch trials '"t an effect that #as not
attri'"ta'le to a s!eed&acc"racy tradeoff (see also @anoach et al$, 2002)$ )odgson,
Dolding, @olyva, /osenthal, and ,ennard (2001, Ex!erient 9), "sing a ore
!redicta'le !resentation se6"ence (a s#itch after eight consec"tive trials of one saccade
ty!e), co!ared antisaccade !erforance in the single&task and ixed&task 'locks$ %hey
re!orted a significant red"ction in antisaccade latencies in the latter, #hich they
s"ggested ay have 'een d"e to allocation of ore attentional reso"rces to the task in
this 'lock, ?leading to a 'enefit in !erforance of antisaccade task? (!$ F20)$
%his !aradoxical i!roveent can 'e inter!reted #ithin a goal&driven controlled
!rocessing a!!roach (see Gie"#enh"is, (roerse, Gielen, & >ong, 2001), so that
?!erforance varia'ility in tasks assessing exec"tive f"nctions ay arise fro fail"res to
f"lly or consistently foc"s attention on task re6"ireents $ $ $ altho"gh task re6"ireents
ay 'e "nderstood and ree'ered, they are not t"rned into active goals or ade6"ately
aintained as s"ch? (!$ 9::), also kno#n as goal neglect (De long, (erendsen, & Cools,
9:::)$ )ence, the !aradoxical s#itch 'enefit in anti saccade latency co"ld 'e d"e to the
allocation of ore attentional reso"rces to the task re6"ireents #hen the task goal is
externally !resented and, hence, "!dated on every trial (in the ixed&task 'lock), as
co!ared #ith #hen the task goal is !resented at the 'eginning of a 'lock of consec"tive
trials (in the single&task 'lock) and "st 'e aintained thro"gho"t and activated
internally$
)ere, #e exained ho# anxiety affected the o'served i!roveent in s#itching
efficiency on the antisaccade task$ Saccade latency and acc"racy in the ixed&task 'lock
#ere co!ared #ith !erforance in the single&task 'lock$ Saccade !erforance #as also
co!ared 'et#een the s#itch and the re!eat trials #ithin the ixed&task 'lock$ Hn the
'asis of the !redictions of the attentional control theory (Eysenck et al$, 2007), #e
ex!ected that )A individ"als, as co!ared #ith *A individ"als, #o"ld not sho# the
i!roved antisaccade !erforance, as eas"red 'y s#itch cost$ 7n other #ords, #hen
shifting #as involved, anxiety #o"ld interfere #ith the efficient allocation of attentional
reso"rces to i!leent the c"rrent goal relevant to the task, as eas"red 'y correct
saccade latency$ )o#ever, #e !redicted that anxiety #o"ld not i!air !erforance
effectiveness, as eas"red here 'y saccadic error rate$
@E%)HD
+artici!ants
3ifty&nine !artici!ants (ean age I F9$:, in I 9<$00 ax I 1=, SD I 7$A) #ere recr"ited
'y eans of advertiseent and "niversity !artici!ant !anels$ All had corrected&to&noral
vision and #ere allo#ed to #ear their glasses or contact lenses$ Each individ"al #as
tested in a se!arate la'oratory session lasting a!!roxiately 10 in and #ere rei'"rsed
( A) for their contri'"tion$
C"e and %arget Sti"li
%he sti"l"s serving as c"e #as an oval&sha!ed o'8ect (F$F = ), and the target
sti"l"s #as an arro# !ointing either "! or do#n (0$= 2$F )$ %hese sti"li #ere
created "sing the @icrosoft +aint gra!hics a!!lication$
Eyetracking S!ecification
Eye oveents #ere eas"red "no'tr"sively via a reote caera o"nted 'elo# the
co!"ter onitor and "sing the *C %echnologies Eyega.e syste (*C %echnology, 7nc$,
200F) to track the !artici!ant;s eye oveents$ %his is an infrared&'ased eyetracking
soft#are that generates ra# ga.e location data at a sa!ling rate of =0 )., allo#ing eye
oveents to 'e recorded every 9=$=7 sec$ 7t "ses the !"!il&center corneal reflection
ethod to estiate ga.e !oints (i$e$, the intersection of the o!tic axis #ith the screen)$
%he eyetracker is cali'rated "sing nine fixation !oints, #ith #hich the soft#are indicates
#hether or not valid ga.e !oints can 'e calc"lated$ %he Eyega.e syste accoodates
several so"rces of error, s"ch as head range variation and !"!il diaeter variation$ Data
are collected fro the eye for #hich the ost ra!id and acc"rate cali'ration is o'tained$
%he !resentation of the sti"li #as controlled 'y the D@DJ !rogra (3orster & 3orster,
200F), #hich also recorded res!onses fro the '"tton 'ox (+7H&92 interface) at 9000 ).,
ens"ring illisecond tiing acc"racy$ %he sti"li #ere !resented in 21&'it color on a
9,021 7=< *CD onitor (5ie#Sonic 700'0 cell res!onse tie, FA sec)$ %he
eyetracking syste and D@DJ #ere a"toatically synchroni.ed at the 'eginning of
each trial$
Ex!eriental %ask
%he !artici!ants #ere re6"ired to co!lete antisaccade and !rosaccade tasks !resented in
t#o 'locksK single task and ixed task$ 7n the single&task 'lock, the !artici!ants
co!leted trials of the sae task, either anti& or !rosaccade, consec"tively in different
'locks$ 7n the ixed&task 'lock, anti& and !rosaccade trials #ere !resented randoly,
re6"iring the !artici!ants to s#itch 'et#een the t#o tasks$ %hese tasks #ill 'e detailed
'elo#$
And& and !rosaccade tasks$ As is de!icted in 3ig"res 9A and 9(, a trial 'egan #ith the
#ord ?/eady,? follo#ed 'y a central fixation sy'ol (s"'tending 0$= )$ %he !artici!ants
#ere instr"cted to fixate it "ntil it disa!!eared$ 7n the re!eat condition (3ig"re 9A), this
fixation sy'ol #as a #hite cross (2 2 )$ 7n the s#itch condition (3ig"re 9(), the
fixation sy'ol #as either a #hite diaond (9$20 2$1 ) or a #hite circle (9$7
diaeter) and !rovided instr"ctions for the ty!e of saccade to 'e !erfored on that trial
(e$g$, the diaond ight indicate a !rosaccade trial, and the circle an antisaccade trial)$
After sy'ol offset and a 200&sec ga!, an oval o'8ect a!!eared 99 to either the left or
the right side of the screen$ %he !artici!ants #ere re6"ired to direct their ga.e either
?a#ay? (antisaccade) fro the oval c"e to its irror !osition on the screen (#itho"t
looking at the c"e) or ?to#ard? it (!rosaccade)$
At c"e offset, an arro# either re!laced the c"e (on !rosaccade trials) or a!!eared on the
side of the screen o!!osite to the c"e (on antisaccade trials)$ %he !artici!ants #ere
re6"ired to identify the direction of the arro# ("! or do#n) 'y !ressing the relevant
'"tton on the '"tton!ress 'ox$9 %he target arro# #as sho#n for 900 sec$
Ex!eriental +roced"re
%he !artici!ants co!leted the ex!erient in t#o sessions se!arated 'y a short 'reak$ 7n
half of the ex!eriental 'locks, anti& and !rosaccade trials #ere !resented randoly
(ixed&task 'lock), and in the reaining half, anti& and !rosaccade trials #ere !resented
consec"tively in se!arate 'locks (single&task 'lock)$ 7n the single&task 'lock, the
!artici!ants #ere instr"cted as follo#sK
7n this task, yo" #ill 'e asked to either look %HCA/DS or ACAE 3/H@ an o'8ect
#hich #ill a!!ear either on the left or right side of the screen$ Every trial #ill 'egin #ith
the #ord ;/eady; follo#ed 'y a cross ( )$ Chenever this a!!ears look at it$ Chen asked to
look to#ard the o'8ect, yo" "st look A% it 5E/E L-7C,*E #hen it a!!ears$ Chen
asked to look a#ay, yo" @-S% GH% look at the o'8ect '"t look ACAE to the side of the
screen o!!osite the oval o'8ect 5E/E L-7C,*E$
An arro# #ill then a!!ear on the screen, yo" sho"ld identify the direction of the arro#
(!ointing -+ or DHCG) "sing the a!!ro!riate keys on the 'ox$ Eo" sho"ld do this
5E/E L-7C,*E$ So ree'er that S!eed and Acc"racy are very i!ortant$
And this #as the sae for the ixed&task 'lock, #ith the follo#ing odificationK
$ $ $ %his 2the cross4 #ill 'e follo#ed 'y a sy'ol that can either 'e a D7A@HGD or a
C7/C*E$ %hen an oval&sha!ed o'8ect #ill 'e flashed on either the left or right side of the
screen$ Chen the sy'ol is a circle yo" "st look ACAE to the side of the screen
o!!osite the oval o'8ect 5E/E L-7C,*E (yo" @-S% GH% *HH, at the oval o'8ect at
all)$ Chen the sy'ol is a diaond then yo" "st look A% the oval o'8ect as soon as it
a!!ears$
An arro# #ill then$ $ $
%he !artici!ants #ere told that the !"r!ose of the st"dy #as to exaine !erce!tion of
o'8ects$ After co!leting the consent for, the !artici!ants rated their ood on five 900&
vis"al analog"e scales (5ASs0 0, not at all, to 900, very "ch) to indicate their ood
states at that !oint in tie (e$g$, (ond, Shine, & (r"ce, 9::A)$ %he diensions incl"ded
ha!!y, irrita'le, sad, anxio"s, and coforta'le states$ %he !artici!ants co!leted these
scales at the end of the ex!erient also$ Gext, half of the !artici!ants co!leted the
eas"re of trait anxiety, the State&%rait Anxiety 7nventory (S!iel'erger, Dors"ch,
*"shene, 5agg, & >aco's, 9:<F), after #hich they #ere given a distractor task involving
searching for vo#els in different atrices of letters$ %his lasted "nder A in$ %he
reaining !artici!ants co!leted the scale at the session;s end$
%he !artici!ants #ere given an overvie# of the eyetracking e6"i!ent, and the res!onse
'"ttons #ere indicated$ %hey #ere seated directly in front of the co!"ter onitor, #ith
their chin !laced on a chinrest (located =0 c fro the screen), in a dily lit c"'icle$
%#enty&fo"r !ractice trials #ere co!leted (92 s#itch, 92 re!eat), at the end of #hich the
!artici!ants #ere asked to ver'ali.e the instr"ctions in order to ens"re that they had 'een
f"lly "nderstood$ %he eyetracker #as cali'rated$ S!eed and acc"racy #ere e!hasi.ed$
At the end, the !artici!ants #ere f"lly de'riefed on the !"r!ose of the st"dy and #ere
!aid for their contri'"tion$
%he ex!erient co!rised eight 'locks of 20 ex!eriental trials each, half of #hich #ere
antisaccade and half of #hich #ere !rosaccade (F20 trials in total, half of #hich #ere
s#itch and half re!eat trials)$ %he orders in #hich the anti& and !rosaccade trials (A(&
(A) and the single&task and ixed&task 'locks (A((A&(AA() #ere !resented #ere
co"nter'alanced in a 'et#een&s"'8ects design$ %he instr"ctional eaning of the circle and
diaond fixation sy'ols "sed in the ixed&task trials #as also co"nter'alanced0 hence,
on half of the trials, the diaond sy'ol instr"cted an antisaccade (and the circle a
!rosaccade), #hereas on the reaining half, it instr"cted a !rosaccade (and the circle an
antisaccade)$
Data +re!aration
Saccades #ere defined as eye oveents #ith velocities exceeding F0 Bsec (@assen,
20010 /e"ter, > ger, (ottlender, & ,athann, 2007) and a!lit"des exceeding F that
#ere ade after c"e onset and 'efore c"e offset$ Ce exained directional acc"racy
(!ercentage of error), #hich de!ended on the re6"ired res!onse (antisaccade or
!rosaccade), and latency of the first correct saccade$
An incorrect saccade #as defined as the first saccade after c"e onset #ith an a!lit"de
MF to#ard the !osition of the c"e (on antisaccade trials) or a#ay fro the c"e (on
!rosaccade trials)$ %he latency of the first correct saccade #as defined as the ela!sed tie
'et#een the onset of the c"e and the 'eginning of a saccade to#ard the correct area of
interest$
Ce exained task&s#itching !erforance 'y first co!aring saccade latency and error
rate in the single&task 'lock #ith those in the ixed&task 'lock (in #hich anti& and
!rosaccade !resentation #as randoi.ed)$ Ce calc"lated latency s#itch cost 'y
s"'tracting ean correct saccade latency in the single&task 'lock fro ean correct
saccade latency in the ixed&task 'lock, a coonly "sed ethodology$ Cith this
co!arison, it is diffic"lt to disentangle the !ossi'le contri'"tions of c"ing of task goal in
the ixed&task 'lock$ 7n order to avoid this !ossi'le confo"nd, #e also !erfored trial&
'y&trial analysis in the ixed&task 'lock$ 7n this 'lock, trials #ere classified as either
s#itch (those trials !receded 'y a trial of the different task ty!e) or re!eat (those trials
!receded 'y a trial of the sae task ty!e)$ *atency s#itch cost in the ixed&task 'lock
#as calc"lated 'y s"'tracting the ean latency on re!eat trials fro that on s#itch trials$
Error rates #ere s"'8ected to the sae !roced"re$
%rials #ere excl"ded fro analysis if eyetracking #as interr"!ted d"e to a lost !"!il or if
no eye oveents #ere ade 'y the !artici!ant$ %rials on #hich the onset of the first
saccade #as shorter than <F sec (i$e$, antici!atory) or the latency to res!ond #as greater
than =00 sec #ere also excl"ded fro analysis$ %hese criteria res"lted in the loss of
1$F9N of the antisaccade and 1$F<N of the !rosaccade trials in the s#itch condition and
1$AAN of the antisaccade and 1$9=N of the !rosaccade trials in the re!eat condition$ An
analysis sho#ed that data loss did not differ as a f"nction of task or trial ty!e$
(ehavioral Data %he !artici!ants #ere also eas"red on reaction tie of correct res!onse
to arro# identification$ %rials #ith incorrect res!onses #ere reoved, as #ere trials #ith
reaction ties less than 900 sec or greater than 2,000 sec$ Hf the data, A$2N #ere lost
d"e to o"tliers and erroneo"s res!onses$
/ES-*%S
+artici!ants
3o"r !eo!le had to 'e excl"ded d"e to !oor tracking$ %his res"lted in AA !artici!ants in
the final data set$ @ean trait anxiety score as eas"red 'y the S!iel'erger State&%rait
Anxiety L"estionnaire (S!iel'erger et al$, 9:<F) for the sa!le#as 12$12 (SD I <$:9,
in I 2F, ax I =1)$ Ce !erfored tercile s!lits on the trait anxiety 6"estionnaire to
!rod"ce lo# and high extree gro"! classifications$ %he *A individ"als (n I 20)
incl"ded those scoring F< or lo#er, and the )A individ"als (n I 29) incl"ded those
scoring 1A or higher on this scale$ @ean trait anxiety for the *A gro"! #as FF$AA (SD I
1$21, in I 2F, ax I F<), and for the )A gro"! it #as A9$9: (SD I A$:F, in I 1A, ax
I =1)$
Analysis on the 5AS scales sho#ed that the task did not have an effect on the
!artici!ants; ood$ Hn each diension, 2 2 ixed AGH5As #ith tie ('efore or
after) as the #ithin&s"'8ects factor and gro"! (*A or )A) as the 'et#een&s"'8ects factor
revealed nonsignificant ain effects of tie 23s $2 for anxio"s0 and 3(9,F:) I 9$1, ! M $F
for coforta'le4$ 7nteraction effects #ith gro"! #ere also nonsignificant 23s $F for sad4$
Eye @oveent Data
*atency of Correct Saccades
Single&task 'lock vers"s ixed&task 'lock$ 3ig"re 2 sho#s the ean correct saccade
latencies for each of the anti& and !rosaccade tasks in each of the single&task and ixed&
task 'locks$ A 2 2 2 ixed AGH5A #ith gro"! (*A or )A individ"als) as the
'et#een&s"'8ects factor and task (anti& or !rosaccade) and 'lock ty!e (single task or
ixed task) as #ithin&s"'8ects factors revealed highly significant ain effects of task
23(9,F:) I :0$=A, !
Hf a8or i!ortance #ere the effects involving anxiety, as indicated 'y the three&#ay
'lock ty!e J task J gro"! interaction 23(9,F:) I =$::, ! I $094$ %his interaction indicated
that, #hereas the *A individ"als exhi'ited shorter antisaccade latencies in the ixed&task
'lock (@ I 2F7$A sec, SD I ==$:A) than in the single&task 'lock (@ I F07$09 sec, SD
I AF$=) 2ean difference I &=:$A0 sec0 !(9:) I =$:2,! $0<4$ 7f #e define s#itch cost as
the ean latency difference 'et#een the single&task and the ixedtask 'locks, #e can see
in 3ig"re F a s#itch 'enefit in antisaccade latency for *A individ"als, '"t not )A
individ"als$ Chen #e exained !rosaccade latencies, there #ere no differences 'et#een
the ixed&task 'lock (@ I 20A$FF sec, SD I F1$7=) and the single&task 'lock (@ I
9:7$1< sec, SD I 2<$1A) in the *A gro"! 2t(9:) I 9$2:, I $24, and the sae !attern
#as o'served in the )A gro"! (for the ixed&task 'lock, @ I 22A$9= sec, SD I 1A$<<0
for the single&task 'lock, @ I 292$17 sec, SD I F=$0F) 2t(20) I 9$=7, ! M $94$
Dro"! differences #ere exained on s#itch cost in 'oth anti& and !rosaccade
!erforance$ %he gro"!s differed on antisaccade s#itch cost 2t(F:) I 2$A7, ! I $094, '"t
not on !rosaccade s#itch cost (t
S#itch vers"s re!eat trials in the ixed&task 'lock$ 3ig"re 1 sho#s ean correct saccade
latencies for each of the and& and !rosaccade tasks on the s#itch and re!eat trials in the
ixed&task 'lock$ A 2 2 2 ixed odel AGH5A #ith gro"! as the 'et#een&
s"'8ects factor and task (anti or !ro) and trial ty!e (s#itch or re!eat) as #ithin&s"'8ects
factors revealed a highly significant ain effect of task 23(9,F:) I A7$9<, !
@ore i!ortant to the !"r!oses of the !resent st"dy is the effect of anxiety on
!erforance, as s"ggested 'y the significant trial ty!e task gro"! interaction$ %his
interaction sho#ed that #hereas *A individ"als 'ecae significantly faster on
antisaccade trials #hen s#itching 'et#een antiand !rosaccade trials (@ I 21<$=1 sec,
SD I =1$2) than #hen antisaccade trials #ere re!eated (@ I 27=$7 sec, SD I AF$=0)
2ean difference of &2<$0A sec0 B(9:) I F$02, I $0074, the )A individ"als #ere not
affected on antisaccade !erforance 2@ I 2::$A= sec, SD I AA$F:, #hen s#itching
'et#een trials, and @ I 2::$07 sec, SD I A7$:2, #hen antisaccade trials #ere re!eated0
ean difference I 0$1:0 t(20)
Dro"! differences #ere exained on s#itch costs for 'oth anti& and !rosaccade
!erforance$ %he gro"!s differed on antisaccade s#itch cost 2t(F:) I 2$17, ! I $094, '"t
not on !rosaccade s#itch cost 2t(F:) I 9$92, ! I $2<4$
7t #as !redicted that anxiety #o"ld have a negative i!act on s#itching 'eca"se efficient
!erforance on the s#itching tasks de!ends on the availa'ility of #orking eory
reso"rces, and since anxiety diinishes availa'le reso"rces, !erforance on s"ch
cognitive tasks #o"ld 'e ex!ected to deteriorate$ %he !resented findings collectively
s"!!ort this vie#$
+ercentage of Saccade Error
Single&task 'lock vers"s ixed&task 'lock$ 3ig"re = de!icts the error rates for each of the
*A and )A gro"!s on the anti& and !rosaccade tasks for the single&task and ixed&task
'locks$ %he !ercentage of trials excl"ded fro the analysis did not differ 'et#een the t#o
gro"!s 2t(F:)
S#itch vers"s re!eat trials in the ixed&task 'lock$ 3ig"re 7 de!icts the error rates for
each of the *A and )A gro"!s on the anti& and !rosaccade tasks for the re!eat and s#itch
trials$ %he !ercentage of trials excl"ded fro the analysis did not differ 'et#een the t#o
gro"!s 2t (F:)
/elation (et#een Saccade *atency and Error /ate S#itch Cost
Des!ite the nonsignificant task trial ty!e and task trial ty!e gro"! interactions
on analysis of error rates, #e decided to cond"ct a f"rther analysis to exaine #hether
the shorter antisaccade latencies, as o'served on the s#itch trials, and the higher error
rates on these trials co"ld 'e ex!lained in ters of a s!eed&acc"racy trade&off$ Ce
exained this relationshi! for each gro"! se!arately, 'y analy.ing !erforance on the
single task #ith that on the ixed task and 'y analy.ing this relationshi! in the ixed
'lock only$ %he relationshi! #as not significant for either the *A or the )A gro"! (r I
&$99, ! I $=, and r I &$02, ! I $:, res!ectively) #hen #e co!ared !erforance on the
single task #ith that on the ixed task$ Siilar effects #ere fo"nd #hen #e exained the
relationshi! in the ixed 'lock only (r I &F1, ! I $91,andr I &$92, ! I $=, for the *A and
the )A gro"!s, res!ectively)$ %hese res"lts indicate that saccade latency i!roveent
#as not si!ly the res"lt of a s!eed&acc"racy trade&off$
(ehavioral Data
%he !artici!ants #ere generally slo#er to identify the direction of the target arro# in the
ixed&task 'lock (@ I 1<7$:2 sec, SD I 929$<1) than in the single&task 'lock (@ I
1=F$A7 sec, SD I :F$A) and #ere slo#er on the antisaccadetask (@ I 1<2$11 sec, SD
I 90<$AA) than on the !rosaccade task (@ I 1=:$0A sec, SD I 907$0A)$ A 2 2 2
ixed AGH5A on ean reaction tie to target arro#, #ith task and 'lock ty!e as #ithin&
s"'8ects factors and gro"! as a 'et#een&s"'8ects factor, revealed a significant ain effect
of 'lock ty!e 23(9,F:) I 99$12, !
D7SC-SS7HG
H"r res"lts s"!!ort the !redicted effects, #ith greater error rates and longer latencies on
the antisaccade than on the !rosaccade task$ %he !artici!ants exhi'ited the !redicted
s#itch 'enefit in antisaccade latency #hen re6"ired to s#itch 'et#een anti& and
!rosaccade trials (ixed&task 'lock), as co!ared #ith #hen they co!leted anti& and
!rosaccade tasks se!arately in 'locks of re!eated trials (single&task 'locks)$ %he
!aradoxical i!roveent in antisaccade latency is consistent #ith the res"lts of !revio"s
research (e$g$, (arton et al$, 20020 Cherkasova et al$, 20020 )odgson et al$, 20010
@anoach et al$, 2002), in #hich siilar !aradoxical red"ctions in antisaccade latencies
#ere re!orted #hen !artici!ants #ere re6"ired to s#itch$
%he i!roveent in antisaccade latency o'served in the !resent st"dy can 'e associated
#ith the !rec"ing of the task goal on every trial in the ixed 'lock, as co!ared #ith the
single&task 'lock (see ,ray, 200=0 Gie"#enh"is et al$, 2001)$ 7n the ixed&task 'lock,
!rec"ing facilitated task set reconfig"ration and allo#ed attentional reso"rces to 'e
allocated to the c"rrent task, res"lting in shorter antisaccade latencies$ 7n the single&task
'lock, ho#ever, the !artici!ants had to actively aintain and trigger the task goal in
#orking eory thro"gho"t each anti& and !rosaccade 'lock, in t"rn res"lting in slo#er
task set reconfig"ration and, hence, slo#er generation of a correct antisaccade$
Hf a8or i!ortance to the ais of the !resent ex!erient #ere the findings regarding
the effect of anxiety in relation to s#itching 'enefit on correct antisaccade latencies$
Co!aring antisaccade !erforance in the singletask and the ixed&task 'locks sho#ed
that *A individ"als exhi'ited the ex!ected s#itch 'enefit in correct antisaccade latencies
'"t that )A individ"als sho#ed no significant i!roveent$ )o#ever, the t#o gro"!s
did not differ in ters of their !erforance on !rosaccade trials$ %he i!ortant gro"!
difference !oints to a diinished a'ility )A individ"als to "tili.e the c"e to facilitate
task set reconfig"ration$ Cithin the frae#ork of the attentional control theory, these
findings s"ggest that these individ"als are less a'le to exercise to!&do#n attentional
control to efficiently shift attentional reso"rces according to ne# task deands$ %his
fail"re to "se to!&do#n control efficiently can 'e attri'"ted to diinished #orking
eory ca!acity in )A individ"als$ 7ndeed, !revio"s research e!hasi.es the critical
role of #orking eory ca!acity in task set reconfig"ration, #hich deterines s"ccessf"l
task&s#itching !erforance (e$g$, (addeley et al$, 20090 )ester & Daravan, 200A0 ,ane
et al$, 20090 *ogan, 2001)$
)o#ever, in order to ens"re the validity of the concl"sions 'ased on these findings, it #as
cr"cial to disentangle the !ossi'le contri'"tion of !rec"ing (in the ixed&task 'lock)
fro that of task s#itching in anti& and !rosaccade !erforance$ 7n other #ords, it is
"nclear #hether the o'served !erforance i!roveent is a tr"e reflection of the effect
of anxiety on task s#itching in this !aradig or si!ly the res"lt of a confo"nd
associated #ith c"ing task goal in the ixed&task, '"t not in the single&task, 'lock$
%o do this, trial&'y&trial analyses #ere cond"cted co!aring !erforance on re!eat and
s#itch trials in the ixed&task 'lock$ %he res"lts re!licated the !aradoxical i!roveent
in antisaccade latencies o'served #hen !erforance in the single&task 'lock #as
co!ared #ith that in the ixed&task 'lock$ @ore s!ecifically, the !artici!ants exhi'ited
a s#itch 'enefit in antisaccade latencies #ithin the ixed&task 'lock #hen the
antisaccade trial #as !receded 'y a !rosaccade trial (s#itch trial), as co!ared #ith #hen
it #as !receded 'y a trial of the sae task ty!e (re!eat trial)$ Cr"cially, this i!roveent
#as fo"nd to 'e associated solely #ith the antisaccade !erforance of *A individ"als,
#hereas )A individ"als exhi'ited no s"ch i!roveent$ %hese findings have i!ortant
i!lications for "nderstanding the "nderlying echaniss 'y #hich anxiety affects task&
s#itching !erforance$
According to the attentional control theory (Eysenck et al$, 2007), s"ccessf"l s#itching
!erforance re6"ires that attentional control 'e exercised in a !ositive #ay to allocate
attentional reso"rces to the task relevant to the c"rrent goal$ 7n the ixed&task 'lock,
s#itching fro a !rosaccade task to an antisaccade task facilitated antisaccade
!erforance in the *A individ"als, '"t not in the )A individ"als, des!ite the ex!licit
!resentation of the task goal on every trial$ Chen !rosaccade !erforance is exained,
on the other hand, *A individ"als are "ch slo#er #hen re6"ired to s#itch to a
!rosaccade task than #hen !rosaccades are re!eated$ %he )A gro"! #as again "naffected
'y s#itching on these trials$ %he key to "nderstanding these gro"! differences ay lie in
an "nderstanding of the effect of !erforing an attentionally deanding cognitive task
(s"ch as task s#itching) in con8"nction #ith antisaccade !erforance$ A recent st"dy in
#hich !recisely this relationshi! #as looked at (,rist8ansson, Chen, & Gakayaa, 2009)
sho#ed that antisaccade !erforance i!roved significantly #hen it #as !erfored
si"ltaneo"sly #ith a deanding !erce!t"al task$ %he a"thors reasoned that the
si"ltaneo"s !erforance of other attention&re6"iring tasks interferes #ith the
!rograing of a reflexive res!onse, 'oth facilitating antisaccade !erforance and
delaying !rosaccade !erforance$ %hey concl"ded that in the antisaccade task, ?less
attention is ore$?
7n light of these findings and the findings of the !resent st"dy, it is therefore conceiva'le
that task s#itching facilitates antisaccade !erforance '"t diinishes !rosaccade
!erforance$ +roviding s"!!ort for the ass"!tions of the attentional control theory, die
!resent findings s"ggest that )A individ"als are "na'le to exercise efficient to!&do#n
attentional control to distri'"te attentional reso"rces according to task deands$ %his is in
line #ith ne"ro'iological evidence sho#ing decreased activation in the D*3+C and the
5*3+C, 'elieved to 'e involved in od"lation of to!&do#n attentional control in )A
individ"als$ (isho! (2007) re!orted that high levels of anxiety #ere associated #ith
red"ced recr"itent of these areas and arg"ed that this is indicative of a diinished
a'ility in )A individ"als to recr"it these areas to a"gent attentional control$
Another i!ortant o'servation in the !resent st"dy #as the lack of anxiety&related effects
on saccade acc"racy (on 'oth single&task vs$ ixed&task and re!eat vs$ s#itch trials
#ithin the ixed&task 'lock), des!ite significant effects on correct antisaccade latency$
%his finding is f"lly consistent #ith the !rediction of the attentional control theory that
anxiety is ore likely to i!air !erforance efficiency than !erforance effectiveness$
%he lack of anxiety&related differential effects on antisaccade acc"racy is consistent #ith
!revio"s findings (Derakshan et al$, in !ress0 Derakshan & Eysenck, 9::<0 Ellian,
Dreen, /ogers, & 3inch, 9::7)$ 3or exa!le, Ellian et al$ fo"nd no effect of anxiety on
the n"'er of correct res!onses on a s"stained attention task$ )o#ever, )A individ"als
took longer to res!ond, #hich #as attri'"ted to greater effort 'eing exerted in !erforing
the task and, hence, decreased !erforance efficiency$
As a final !oint, in this article, #e have ass"ed that correct antisaccade !erforance
reflects the individ"al !artici!ant;s level of attentional control (e$g$, Ettinger et al$, 200<)$
)o#ever, an alternative ass"!tion is that the control of eye oveents in the
antisaccade task refleets soe for of 'ehavioral inhi'ition that ay or ay not 'e
linked #ith attention$ A third !ossi'ility is that there is an interaction 'et#een attentional
control and 'ehavioral inhi'ition in #hich attentional control facilitates 'ehavioral
inhi'ition$ Diven the #ealth of data on the ne"ral correlates of antisaccade !erforance
(see Ettinger et al$, 200<), #e arg"e that saccadic eye oveents in the antisaccade task
are relia'le indices of attentional control$ Ce e!hasi.e the i!ortance of attentional
control in "nderstanding antisaccade !erforance and, at the sae tie, acce!t the need
for ore research in identifying the role of 'ehavioral inhi'ition$
Hverall, the findings of the !resent ex!erient sho# that anxiety diinishes the
coonly exhi'ited s#itching 'enefit in correct antisaccade latency, s"ggesting that
#hen shifting, )A individ"als cannot i!leent goaldirected to!&do#n control to
allocate attentional reso"rces to the c"rrent task deands$ 3"rtherore, anxiety did not
have an effect on directional acc"racy$ %hese o'servations are !recisely in line #ith the
!redictions of the attentional control theory (Eysenck et al$, 2007), !roviding a ore
direct assessent of the "nderlying echaniss #ith #hich anxiety i!airs attentional
control #hen the shifting f"nction is re6"ired$
%he !resent findings indicate that anxiety i!airs efficient shifting of attentional
reso"rces to task deands in the a'sence of threat$ %heoretically, it is i!ortant to
exaine ho# threat affects task&s#itching !erforance in )A and *A individ"als$ %here
is "ch research in s"!!ort of the association 'et#een anxiety and increased attentional
'ias to#ard threatening sti"li (e$g$, 3ox, /"sso, (o#les, & D"tton, 2009 0 3ox, /"sso,
& D"tton, 20020 see (ar&)ai et al$, 2007, for a revie#)$ %he attentional control theory
!redicts that the adverse effect of anxiety on task !erforance #ill 'e greater in the
!resence of task&irrelevant threat&related aterial$ Ce are c"rrently investigating
attentional control in the !resence of eotional sti"li$ 3inally, it is i!ortant to
investigate attentional control as eas"red thro"gh the antisaccade task in other
ne"ro!sychiatric conditions, s"ch as !sychosis and de!ression$ Diven the high correlation
'et#een anxiety and de!ression, it #ill 'e "sef"l for f"t"re research to atte!t to
disentangle the "ni6"e contri'"tions of these conditions in ters of attentional control$
H"r la' is c"rrently investigating the echaniss "nderlying attentional control #ith
res!ect to de!ression$
GH%E
9$ %he ain !"r!ose that the arro# identification task served #as to ens"re the
!artici!ants; engageent in the ain task$