PT Gebäude, Zi. 4.1.30
Telefon 0941 943-3817
Telefax 0941 943-1995
Sprechstunde: Mo 13-14:00 Uhr (in der vorlesungsfreien Zeit nach Vereinbarung!)
E-Mail: gesine.dreisbach@ur.de
In my research, I focus on processes of cognitive control. Cognitive control enables humans to dynamically adjust thought and action to changing goals and task demands. To give just one example, cognitive control enables to resist a strong but currently inappropriate response tendency (reaching for your cell phone to look for possible messages) in favor of a weaker but adequate response (listening to your partner).
Broadly speaking, my research interests revolve around four issues:
(1) Task switching and the functional role of task rules.
(2) Context-sensitive adjustment of cognitive control.
(3) Conflicts as aversive signals for control adaptations.
(4) Affective and motivational modulation of cognitive control.
(5) Training executive functions
1992: Vordiplom (Psychology) University of Mannheim.
1997: Diplom (Psychology) Berlin University of Technology.
2000: Promotion zum Dr. phil. University of the Federal Armed Forces, Hamburg.
Senior Advisor: Prof. Dr. Rainer H. Kluwe.
2007: Habilitation zum Dr. phil. et rer. nat. habil. , Dresden University of Technology
1997 - 1998: Research Associate, University of the Federal Armed Forces, Hamburg, Research project "Intentional control of cognitive activity", funded by DFG.
1998 - 2000: Research Scientist, University of the Federal Armed Forces, Hamburg, Institute for Cognitive Research
2000 - 2001: Postdoc with Jonathan D. Cohen, Princeton University, USA, Center for the Study of Mind, Brain, and Behavior
2002 - 2008: Research Scientist, Dresden University of Technology, Department of Psychology
10/2006 - 9/2007: Visiting Professor (Professurvertretung Allgemeine Psychologie II) an der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/M.
10/2008 - 9/2009: Professor (W2), Allgemeine Psychologie II, Department of Psychology, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld.
Since 10/2009 Professor, Lehrstuhl für Allgemeine Psychologie, Institut für Experimentelle Psychologie, Universität Regensburg
2017: Visiting Professor at the University of Leiden, The Netherlands, funded by the KNAW (the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences)
Associate Editor for Experimental Psychology (2016-2019)
Series Editor SpringerBriefs in Cognition
Member of the editorial Board:
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD)
Israel Science Foundation (ISF)
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Acta Psychologica
Adaptive Behavior
Behavioral Neuroscience
Biological Psychology
Brain and Cognition
Brain Research Bulletin
Cognition
Cognition and Emotion
Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience
Cognitive Psychology
Emotion
Experimental Psychology
Experimental Brain Research
Frontiers in Cognition
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
Memory and Cognition
Motivation and Emotion
Nature Human Behavior
Neuropsychologia
PLoS ONE
Psychologica Belgica
Psychological Research
Psychological Science
Psychological Review
Psychologische Rundschau
Psychoneuroendocrinology
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Psychophysiology
Social Cognition
Social Psychological and Personality Science
Social Psychology
The American Journal of Psychology
Trends in Cognitive Science
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
Vision Research
Dreisbach, G. (2023). Using the theory of constructed emotion to inform the study of cognition-emotion interactions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 30, 489–497. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02176-z
Dreisbach, G. & Fröber, K. (2019). How to be flexible (or not): Modulation of the Flexibility-Stability-Balance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(1), 3-9. doi: 10.1177/0963721418800030
Dreisbach, G. & Fischer, R. (2016). Conflicts as aversive signals: Motivation for control adaptation in the service of affect regulation. In Todd S. Braver (Ed.). Motivation and Cognitive Control. Psychology Press, New York, NY. (pp. 188-210).
Dreisbach, G. (2012). Mechanisms of cognitive control: The functional role of task rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 227-231.
Dreisbach, G., Musslick, S., & Braem, S. (2024). Flexibility and Stability can be both dependent and independent. Correspondence in Nature Reviews Psychology. doi: 10.1038/s44159-024-00348-3
Calcott, R.*, Kolnes, M.*, van Steenbergen, H. & Dreisbach, G. (in press). The differential effects of reward prospect and reward reception: Dynamic performance adjustment versus stable performance. Motivation Science. https://dpo-org/10.1037/mot0000348
*shared first authorship
Mendl, J. Banerjee, S., Fischer, R., Dreisbach, G.*, & Köster, M.* (2024). Control in context: The theta rhythm provides evidence for reactive control but no evidence for proactive control. Psychophysiology, 00, e14625.
*shared senior authorship
Mendl, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2024). Is task switching avoided to save effort or time? Shorter intertrial durations following task switches increase the willingness to switch tasks. Motivation Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000347
Mendl, J., Fröber, K., & Dreisbach, G. (2024). Flexibility by association? No Evidence for an Influence of Cue-Transition Associations on Voluntary Task Switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 50(3), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001186
Dreisbach, G. & Mendl, J. (2024). Flexibility as a matter of context, effort, and ability: evidence from the task-switching paradigm. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 55, 101348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2023.101348
Dreisbach, G. (2023). Using the theory of constructed emotion to inform the study of cognition-emotion interactions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 30, 489–497. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02176-z
Fröber, K., & Dreisbach, G. (2023). You can('t) always get what you want: When Goal Persistence Requires Flexibility. Motivation Science. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000297
Mendl, J. & Dreisbach, G. (2022). The role of objective and introspective switch costs in voluntary task choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001051
Hommel, B., & Dreisbach, G. (2022). Cognitive resources, quo vadis? Editorial. Frontiers in Psychology, 12:994801. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.994801
Jurczyk, V. Steinhauser, R., Dreisbach, G., & Steinhauser, M. (2022). To switch or to repeat? Commonalities and differences in the electrophysiological correlates of preparation for voluntary and forced task choices. Psychophysiology.
Köllnberger, K., Bogon, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2022). Binding time: Investigations on the integration of visual stimulus duration. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. First published online November 15, 2022
Czacczkes, T. J., Berger, A., Koch, A. & Dreisbach, G. (2022). Conflict interference in an insect. Journal of Comparative Psychology. Vol. 136, No. 1, 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000294
Fröber, K., Jurczyk, V., & Dreisbach, G. (2021). Keep flexible - keep switching? Boundary conditions of the influence of forced task switching on voluntary task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001104
Fröber, K., Jurczyk, V., Mendl, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2021). Investigating anticipatory processes during sequentially changing reward prospect: An ERP study. Brain and Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2021.105815 full text
Dreisbach, G. & Jurczyk, V. (2021). The role of objective and subjective effort costs on voluntary task choice. Psychological Research, published online August 29, 2021. link to full text
Jurczyk, V., Fröber, K., & Dreisbach, G. (2021). Bottom-up influences on voluntary task switching in different reward contexts? Acta Psychologica. Online first https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103312
Gable, P. & Dreisbach, G. (2021). Approach motivation and positive affect. Current Dpinion in Behavioral Sciences, 39, 203-208.
Paul, K., Pourtois, G., van Steenbergen, H., Gable, P., & Dreisbach, G. (2021). Finding a balance: Modulatory effects of positive affect on attentional and cognitive control. Current Dpinion in Behavioral Sciences. 39, 163-141.
Pereg, K., Harpaz, D., Sabah, K., BenShachar, M. S., Amir, I., Dreisbach, G. & Meiran, N. (2021) Lerning the ababstract general task structure in a rapidly changing task content. Journal of Cognition, 4(1): 31, pp. 1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.176
Sabah, K., Meiran, N., & Dreisbach, G. (Jan 27, 2021). Examining the Trainability
and Transferability of Working-Memory Gating Policies. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement. link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41465-021-00205-8 (open access).Fröber, K., & Dreisbach, G. (2020). How sequentially changing reward prospect
modulates meta-control: Increasing reward prospect promotes cognitive flexibility. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience. Advance online publication. doi.org/10.3758/s13415-020-00825-1Berger, A., Dolk, T., Bogon, J. & Dreisbach, G. (2020). Challenging
Voices: Mixed evidence for context-specific control adjustments in the auditory domain. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.73(10) 1684–Hefer, C. & Dreisbach, G. (2017). How performance-contingent reward prospect modulates cognitive control: Increased cue maintenance at the cost of decreased flexibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.Volume: 43 Issue: 10 Pages: 1643-1658
Surrey, C., Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2017). Context-specific adjustment of cognitive control: Transfer of adaptive control sets. Quarlerly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 70(11), 2386-2401. doi:10.1080/17470218.2016.1239748.
Fröber, K., Stürmer, B., Frömer, R. & Dreisbach, G. (2017). The role of affective evaluation in conflict adaptation: An LRP study. Brain and Cognition, 116, 9-16. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2017.05.003 full text
Fröber, K. & Dreisbach, G. (2017). Keep flexible -- keep switching! The influence of forced task switching on voluntary task switching. Cognition.162, 48-53. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.01.024
Bogon, J., Eisenbarth, H., Landgraf, S. & Dreisbach, G. (2017). Shielding voices: The modulation of binding processes between voice features and response features by task representations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(9), 1856-1866. doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1209686.
Hefer, C., & Dreisbach, G. (2016). The motivational modulation of proactive control in a modified version of the AX-Continuous Performance Task: Evidence from cue-based and prime-based preparation. Motivation Science, 2(2), 116-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000034
Fröber, K. & Dreisbach, G. (2016). How performance (non-)contingent reward modulates cognitive control. Acta Psychologica,168, 65-77. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.04.008
Cohen, A.-L., Gordon, A., Jaudas, A., Hefer, C. & Dreisbach, G. (2016). Let it go: The flexible engagement and disengagement of monitoring processes in a nonfocal prospective memory task. Psychological Research.
Fröber, K. & Dreisbach, G. (2016). How sequential changes in reward magnitude modulate cognitive flexibility: Evidence from voluntary task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 285-295. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000166
Dreisbach, G. & Fischer, R. (2016). Conflicts as aversive signals: Motivation for control adaptation in the service of affect regulation. In Todd S. Braver (Ed.). Motivation and Cognitive Control. Psychology Press, New York, NY. (pp. 188-210).
Fritz, J., Fischer, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2015). The influence of negative stimulus features on conflict adaptation: Evidence from fluency of processing. Frontiers in Cognition. 6 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00185
Thomaschke, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2015). The time-event correlation effect is due to temporal expectancy, not to partial transition costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 196-218.
Fritz, J. & Dreisbach, G. (2015). The time course of the aversive conflict-signal. Experimental Psychology. 62(1), 30-39.
Fischer, R., Plessow, F., Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2014). Individual differences in the context-dependent recruitment of cognitive control: Evidence from action versus state orientation. Journal of Personality.
Thomaschke, R., Kunchulia, M., & Dreisbach, G. (2014). Time-based event expectations employ relative, not absolute, representations of time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review DOI: 10.3758/s13423-014-0710-6
Dreisbach, G. & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2014). Don't do it again... Directed forgetting of habits. Psychological Science. 25, 1242-1248.
Fischer, R., Gottschalk, C. & Dreisbach, G. (2014). Context-sensitive adjustment of cognitive control in dual task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. Volume: 40 Issue: 2 Pages: 399-416
Böttcher, S. & Dreisbach, G. (2014). Socially triggered negative affect impairs performance in simple cognitive tasks. Psychological Research.78 Issue: 2 Pages: 151-165.
Reisenauer, R. & Dreisbach, G. (2014). The shielding function of task rules in the context of task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
67, 358-376
Pastötter, B., Dreisbach, G., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2013). Dynamic adjustments of cognitive control: Oscillatory correlates of the conflict-adaptation effect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 25, 2167-2178.
Fritz, J. & Dreisbach, G. (2013). Conflicts as aversive signals: Conflict priming increases negative judgments for neutral stimuli. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 13, 311-317.
Reisenauer, R. & Dreisbach, G. (2013). The impact of task rules on distracter processing: Automatic categorization of irrelevant stimuli. Psycholgical Research.doi: 10.1007/s00426-012-0413-4, 77, 128-138.
Thomaschke, R. & Dreisbach, G. (2013). Temporal predictability facilitates action, not perception. Psychological Science, 24, 1335-1340.
Dreisbach, G. & Fischer, R. (2012). The role of affect and reward in the conflict-triggered adjustment of cognitive control. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.6:342.doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00342 .
Wendt, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., Reisenauer, R., Jacobsen, T. & Dreisbach, G. (2012). Sequential modulation of cue use in the task switching paradigm. Frontiers in Cognition. 3, 287 open access
Fröber, K. & Dreisbach, G. (2012). How positive affect modulates proactive control: Reduced usage of informative cues under positive affect with low arousal. Frontiers in Cognition, 3, 265. download
Dreisbach, G. (2012). Mechanisms of cognitive control: The functional role of task rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 227-231.
Dreisbach, G. & Fischer, R. (2012). Conflicts as aversive signals. Brain & Cognition, 72, 94-98. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2011.12.003 download
Dreisbach, G. & Wenke, D. (2011). The shielding function of task sets and its relaxation during task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 37, 1540-1546. doi: 10.1037/a0024077
Dreisbach, G. & Fischer, R. (2011). If it's hard to read... try harder! Processing fluency as signal for effort adjustments. Psychological Research, 75, 376-383. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-010-0319-y.
Metzker, M. & Dreisbach, G. (2011). Priming processes in the Simon Task: Evidence from the lexical decision task for a third route in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception, and Performance, 37, 892-902.
Dreisbach, G. & Boettcher, S. (2011). How the social-evaluative context modulates processes of cognitive control. Psychological Research, 75, 143-151. DOI: 10.107/s00426-010-0298-z link
Metzker, M. & Dreisbach, G. (2009). Bidirectional priming processes in the Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception, and Performance, 35, 1770-1783.
Dreisbach, G. & Haider, H. (2009). How task representations guide attention: Further evidence for the shielding function of task sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 477-486. download
Dreisbach, G. & Haider, H. (2008). That's what task sets are for: Shielding against irrelevant information. Psychological Research, 72, 355-361. download
Fischer, R., Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2008). Context-sensitive adjustments of cognitive control: Conflict-adaptation effects are modulated by processing demands of the ongoing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 34(3), 712-718. download
Goschke, T., & Dreisbach, G. (2008). Conflict-triggered goal-shielding attenuates background-monitoring for prospective memory cues. Psychological Science, 19, 25-32. download
Dreisbach, G. (2008). Wie Stimmungen unser Denken beeinflussen. Report Psychologie, 33, 289-298. download
Müller, J. , Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., Hensch, T., Lesch, K.-P., Brocke, B. (2007). Dopamine and cognitive control: The prospect of monetary gains influences the balance between flexibility and stability in a set-shifting paradigm. European Journal of Neuroscience. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05949.x (available online)
Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., & Haider H. (2007). The role of task-rules and stimulus-response mappings in the task switching paradigm. Psychological Research, 71, 383-392. download
Müller, J., Dreisbach, G., Brocke, B., Lesch, K. P., Strobel, A. & Goschke, T. (2007). Dopamine and cognitive control: The influence of spontaneous eyeblink rate, DRD4 exon III polymorphism and gender on flexibility in set-shifting. Brain Research. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.11.002 (available online)
Strobel, A., Dreisbach, G., Müller, J., Goschke, T. Brocke, B., & Lesch, K.P. (2007). Genetic variation of serotonin function and cognitive control. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1923-1931
Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., & Haider H. (2006). Implicit task sets in task switching? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 32, 1221-1233. download
Dreisbach, G., & Haider, H. (2006). Preparatory adjustment of cognitive control in the task switching paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 334-338. download
Dreisbach, G. (2006). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: The costs and benefits of reduced maintenance capability. Brain & Cognition, 60, 11-19. download
Dreisbach, G., Müller, J., Goschke, T., Strobel, A., Schulze, K., Lesch, K. P., & Brocke, B. (2005). Dopamine and Cognitive Control: The influence of spontaneous eye-blink rate and dopamine gene polymorphisms on perseveration and distractibility. Behavioral Neuroscience, 119, 483-490. download
Dreisbach, G. & Goschke, T.(2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: Reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. 30, 343-353. download
Hübner, M., Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., & Kluwe, R.H. (2003). Backward Inhibition as a Means of Sequential Task-Set Control: Evidence for Reduction of Task Competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. 29, 289-297. download
Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., & Kluwe, R.H. (2002). Preparatory Processes in the Task Switching Paradigm: Evidence from the Use of Probability Cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. 28, 468-483. download
G. Horstmann & G. Dreisbach (2017). Allgemeine Psychologie 2 kompakt. Weinheim: Beltz PVU. 2., vollständig überarbeitete Auflage.
Goschke, T. & Dreisbach, G. (2011). Kognitiv-affektive Neurowissenschaft: Emotionale Modulation des Denkens, Erinnerns und Handelns. In U. Wittchen & J. Hoyer (Hrsg.), Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie (2. Aufl.) (S. 129- 168). Berlin: Springer.
Dreisbach, G. (2000). Kognitive Prozesse der Vorbereitung bei wechselnden Aufgabenstellungen. Marburg: Tectum-Verlag. (Thesis)
LAUFENDE PROJEKTE
DR 392/12-1, FI 1624/7-1 The (in)flexibility of control adaptations
Funding Period: 36 months (about to start)
Adaptive control forms the basis of cognitive and behavioral flexibility. It is sensitive to normal aging and its malfunction is closely related to neurological and psychiatric conditions. In general, human beings have the astonishing ability to flexibly adapt action and thought in response to changing requirements from the environment. At the same time, they can be surprisingly stuck in set, for example when they continue using a formerly successful but no longer adaptive processing strategy. Such stuck-in-set phenomena, originally reported in problem solving tasks (Luchins, 1942) are not restricted to neuropsychological abnormalities like perseveration in frontal lobe patients but have recently also been reported for control strategies in context processing- and response conflict-tasks in healthy individuals (e.g., Abrahamse, Duthoo, Notebaert, & Risko, 2013; Hefer & Dreisbach, 2017). In this research project, we intend to investigate two so far highly neglected phenomena that expose a weakness of the much-vaunted cognitive flexibility: (1) The asymmetrical costs when switching between a shielded and a more relaxed mode of control, which show that it can be harder to let go from a shielding control mode and switch to a more relaxed control mode than vice versa. And (2) the observation that the flexibility to adapt control to different context demands is further limited by the volatility and frequency of context changes. The importance of adaptive control for cognitive and behavioral flexibility highlights the need for understanding the underlying cognitive mechanisms (e.g., the flexible (dis)engagement of different control states), which may offer fertile grounds for subsequent translational research.
PI projetct 1: Prof. Dr. Gesine Dreisbach
PI project 2: Prof. Dr. Rico Fischer
Ph.D.: N. N.
Ph.D.: N. N.
DR 392/10-1 Mechanisms underlying flexible task choice: Investigating reward and context effects
Funding Period: Starting October 2019 (for 3 years)
Goal directed behavior in a constantly changing environment requires a dynamic balance between two antagonistic modes of control: on the one hand, goals need to be maintained and shielded from distraction (stability), and, on the other hand, goals need to be relaxed and flexibly updated whenever significant changes occur (flexibility). To investigate the flexible modulation of task choice, we will use the voluntary task switching paradigm. In the first part of the project, we will investigate the mechanisms underlying the context effect, which describes the observation that humans switch more often voluntarily when they are in a context of frequent forced choices. The second part of the project will be devoted to the question why humans switch more often to a different task when reward prospect increases and why they show more stable behavior when reward prospect remains unchanged. To answer these questions, we will rely on behavioral measures (task choice, reaction times, error rates, and subjective effort costs), pupillometry (to measure effort and arousal) and electrophysiological correlates of preparatory activity. The overarching goal is to deepen our understanding how context and motivation impact flexible task choice.
PI: Prof. Dr. Gesine Dreisbach
Contributing: Dr. Kerstin Fröber
Ph.D.: MSc. Jonathan Mendl
DR 392/9-1 Training Executive Functions: Lessons learned from prefrontal cortex physiology
Funding Period: 1.9. 2016-30.4. 2020
Executive functions (EFs) enable us to flexibly adjust our thoughts and actions according to rapidly changing constraints to optimize goal attainment. EF rely on a network of brain areas including the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and are heavily involved in complex problem solving, cognitive development, and aging-related cognitive decline. Moreover, most psychopathological problems go along with impairments in EF. Consequently, there has been growing interest in finding ways to improve EF, with special attention given to computerized training. However, the results so far are equivocal. Some reviews have reached optimistic conclusions. Yet, meta-analytic reviews indicate that while there are reliable practice effects (improvement seen in the training task) and relatively modest near transfer effects (improvement in structurally similar tasks), far transfer effects (improvements in structurally dissimilar tasks that presumably tap the trained EF) are predominantly tiny. We argue that the design of most of the current computerized EF training programs is not well grounded in extant theories of PFC neurophysiology. In this research project we will test two related hypotheses concerning why the success of computerized training had so far proven very modest: (1) From PFC physiology, far transfer is not to be expected in the first place unless the abstract task structure that is learned during training is mirrored in the transfer task. (2) How EF-training is currently designed results in negative transfer effects (performance deterioration due to practice) which mask the (already quite small) beneficial transfer effects. These negative transfer effects occur because (a) the application of (instructed task rules) increases shielding and (b) because the repetitive nature of the training (constant repetition of a small number of training tasks) minimizes the involvement of EF.
PI: Prof. Dr. Gesine Dreisbach, Prof. Dr. Nachshon Meiran (Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel)
Ph.D. student Germany: M.Sc. Katrina Sabah
SPP 1772 -- DR 392/8-1 The influence of sequentially changing reward prospect on cognitive flexibility during (voluntary) task switching
(Part of DFG Priority Program SPP 1772: Human performance under multiple cognitive task requirements: From basic mechanisms to optimized task scheduling)
Förderperiode: 1. Oktober 2015 - 30. September 2019
Attending to two (or more) tasks at the same time requires cognitive flexibility and is associated with performance decrements as compared to single task performance. In cognitive psychology, the task switching paradigm has become a popular tool to investigate a specific kind of multitasking performance, namely performing more than one task in a sequential and random order. In this paradigm, task switches afford cognitive flexibility, whereas task repetitions benefit from cognitive stability. This makes the task switching paradigm an ideal tool to investigate the interplay of two antagonistic control modes, namely flexibility and stability.
Considering the increasing importance of successful multitasking performance in modern society it is essential to identify ways to differentially motivate flexible and stable behavior. Recent evidence (Shen & Chun, 2011; Fröber & Dreisbach, in press) suggests that specifically increases in expected reward magnitude increase flexibility whereas the prospect of unchanged high reward increases stability: Predetermined task switches are facilitated and the willingness to deliberately switch the task is increased as compared to unchanged high reward prospect. Aim of the proposed research program is to further investigate how sequential changes in reward prospect differentially influence stability versus flexibility during (voluntary) task switching.
In one part of the first funding period, we want to investigate the boundary conditions of the modulation of cognitive flexibility by sequentially changing reward magnitudes. Therefore, we will manipulate global context parameters like the ratio of forced to voluntary task switching, specific instructions given to the participant (on how to choose freely), the absolute vs. relative amount of reward prospect, and varying task difficulties. In the other part, we will focus on the interaction of task expectancies and reward expectancies. Increased cognitive flexibility should facilitate adaptation to unexpected events. Therefore, we want to investigate how sequentially changing reward prospect modulates performance under violations of expectation and increased uncertainty using different procedures of voluntary and forced task switching. The overarching goal of this research program is to deepen our understanding of how global context parameters and motivation modulate processes of cognitive flexibility. As such, the project contributes to the second cluster of the priority program (“Flexibility”).
Projektleitung: Prof. Dr. Gesine Dreisbach
Projektmitarbeiter: Dr. Kerstin Fröber, Julia Hauke, M. Sc. Vanessa Jurczyk
DR 392/7-1 Der Einfluss von positivem Affekt und Belohnung auf Prozesse kognitiver Kontrolle.
Förderperiode: 1. Oktober 2014 - 30. September 2018
Seit Mitte der 80er Jahre des vergangenen Jahrhunderts mehren sich die empirischen Belege, dass milder positiver Affekt qualitative Effekte auf die kognitive Informationsverarbeitung hat. Die neuropsychologischen Grundlagen werden gemäß der Dopamintheorie des positiven Affekts (Dopamine theory of positive affect; Ashby, Isen & Turken, 1999; Ashby, Valentin, & Turken, 2002) in einer mit positivem Affekt einhergehenden erhöhten dompaminergen Aktivität gesehen (s. auch Dreisbach & Goschke, 2004; Dreisbach et al., 2005). Da Dopamin auch in engem Zusammenhang mit dem Erhalt einer unerwarteten Belohnung steht (z.B. Schulz, 1997) und Belohnung typischerweise mit positivem Affekt einhergeht, wurde in der kognitionspsychologischen Literatur häufig kaum bzw. unzureichend zwischen positivem Affekt und Belohnung als unabhängiger Variable unterschieden (s. Chiew & Braver, 2011; Dreisbach & Fischer, 2012). In dem beantragten Projekt sollen die differentiellen Einflüsse von positivem Affekt einerseits und (verhaltensabhängiger und -unabhängiger) Belohnung andererseits auf kognitive Kontrollprozesse vergleichend untersucht werden. Diese Forschung soll einen Beitrag zur aktuellen Diskussion über das Zusammenspiel von motivationalen und emotionalen Einflüssen auf kognitive Kontrolle leisten.
Projektleitung: Prof. Dr. Gesine Dreisbach
Projektmitarbeiterin: Dipl. Psych. Carmen Hefer
Eine der fundamentalen Fähigkeiten menschlicher Kognition besteht darin, die für eine aktuelle Absicht relevanten Aufgabenmerkmale zu beachten und irrelevante Merkmale auszublenden. Im Mittelpunkt der Untersuchungen steht die Frage, wie diese Fokussierung der Aufmerksamkeit bei gleichzeitiger Abschirmung gegenüber möglichen Störeinflüssen aus der Umwelt ermöglicht wird. Woher "weiß" das kognitive System, welche Merkmale relevante Merkmale im Sinne der Aufgabenstellung sind und entsprechende Beachtung verdienen und welche nicht? Und wovon hängt es ab, ob scheinbar irrelevante Merkmale dennoch Zugang zur Aufgabenrepräsentation erlangen? Ich nehme an, dass Task Sets bei der Aufmerksamkeitssteuerung eine zentrale Rolle einnehmen. In Voruntersuchungen zum geplanten Projekt konnte bereits gezeigt werden, dass ein irrelevantes Stimulusmerkmal (z.B. die Farbe des gezeigten Stimulus) die Aufgabenbearbeitung in einer seriellen Reaktionszeitaufgabe nachhaltig beeinflusst, nicht aber, wenn der Bearbeitung eben dieser Stimuli ein Task Set (eine kategoriale Entscheidung) zugrunde gelegt wurde (Dreisbach & Haider, 2008, 2009).
Projektleitung: Prof. Dr. Gesine Dreisbach
Projektmitarbeiterinnen: Dr. Manja Metzker (2007-2009, Promotion 2009)
Dr. Renate Reisenauer (2010-2013, Promotion 2014)