As previously defined, local costs were obtained by comparing performance between switch and repeat trials during mixed-task blocks. Global mixing costs were obtained by comparing performance between

mixed and pure task blocks. anova with Trial (switch vs. repeat) and Modality (visual vs. auditory) as independent factors revealed a Trial × Modality interaction (F1,15 = 8.69, P = 0.01). The interaction of Trial × Modality was driven by the fact that RTs on auditory switch trials (Aswitch = 621 ms) were marginally slower than those on repeat trials (Arepeat = 605 ms), a switch cost of 16 ms, whereas RTs for visual switch trials (Vswitch = 638 ms) PD98059 mw were actually marginally faster than those seen on repeat trials (Vrepeat = 657 ms), an ostensible 19-ms switch benefit. While the interaction term of the anova was significant, follow-up t-tests within modality (i.e. switch vs. repeat RTs) showed that neither the auditory switch cost nor

the visual switch benefit reached conventional levels of statistical significance (P > 0.06). As such, there was no evidence here of classic switch costs in terms of response speed. learn more Two participants did not complete the pure task blocks, and were thus excluded from this analysis. An anova with factors of Block (mixed vs. pure) and Modality (visual vs. auditory) was conducted. While both the auditory (Apure = 582 ms, Amixed = 605 ms) and visual (Vpure = 587 ms, Vmixed = 657 ms) tasks suggested a marginal mixing cost (a mixing cost of 17 and 70 ms for the auditory and visual tasks, respectively) no main effects or interactions

reached significance (all P > 0.1). As such, there was no strong evidence here of mixing costs in terms of response speed. For the d-prime measurement of discrimination accuracy we observed highly similar measurements of discrimination between switch and repeat trials (Aswitch = 2.93 vs. Arepeat = 2.82, and Vswitch = 2.81 vs. Vrepeat = 2.85), and an anova with factors of Trial (switch vs. repeat) and Modality (visual vs. auditory) unsurprisingly revealed no significant main effects or interactions. As such, there was no evidence of switch costs in terms C59 price of task accuracy. Again, two participants did not complete the pure task blocks and were thus excluded from this analysis. Anova with Block (mixed vs. pure) and Modality (visual vs. auditory) as factors revealed a main effect of Block (F1,13 = 11.74, P = 0.005), which was driven by a mixing cost in both the auditory (Apure = 3.7 vs. Amixed = 2.86; Amixcost = 0.84) and visual (Vpure = 3.5 vs. Vmixed = 2.84; Vmixcost = 0.76) tasks. No other main effects or interactions reached statistical significance.