5. In terms of errors, the theoretically critical Task × Interruption interaction approached significance, F(1, 19) = 3.97, MSE = 10.26, p < .07, while

the additional interaction with the Congruency factor was in the expected direction, but not significant, F(1, 19) = 1.85, MSE = 14.45, p = .19. By AZD5363 looking at the control groups, we can again assess to what degree the cost asymmetry present in the experimental group is an unspecific phenomenon rather than tied to experience with both types of tasks. As obvious from Fig. 6, the cost asymmetry that is present in the experimental group (at least in the first half) is completely absent when comparing the two control groups. In fact, in an ANOVA comparing the two word-task group and the location-task group, there was a nearly reliable Group × Interruption interaction that in terms of direction was opposite to the cost asymmetry interaction in the experimental condition, F(1, 38) = 3.89, MSE = 2357.60, p < .06. Also, when comparing the dominant, location-task performance for the control and the experimental groups there was a highly reliable Group × Task × Interruption interaction, F(1, 38) = 20.54,

MSE = 5439.39, p < .01, that was further modulated by the block-half factor, F(1, 38) = 10.56, MSE = 2506.01, p < .01, and in addition, by the response-congruency factor, F(1, 38) = 4.15, MSE = 880.64, p < .05, with Selleckchem PD0332991 somewhat larger congruency effects for first-half, post-interruption trials. Furthermore, for the location task, there was no reliable difference between groups for maintenance trials F(1, 38) < .6, suggesting that once recovery from interruptions was complete, subjects

in the experimental condition were able to focus on the location task just as well as those in the control condition. For errors, it is evident that there is no hint of a post-interruption cost-asymmetry in the control condition. All in all, the pattern we obtained with this task combination was similar to what we found for the endogenous/exogenous attentional control tasks (see also our previous results with the Stroop task (Bryck & Mayr, 2008). However, there were two qualifications. First, the effect was less persistent MYO10 than in the previous experiments with a clear cost asymmetry in the first half that largely diminished in the second half. Accumulation of new memory traces during the first half of each block in the experimental condition may have counteracted the interference from the previous block with the competing task. We had found a tendency of a diminishing cost asymmetry also in the preceding experiments. Thus, at this point it would be premature to conclude that there is a qualitative difference in the persistence of interference between attentional-selection and the response-selection domain.