e., conflict trials) whereas on the other 50% no such stimulus was shown (i.e., no-conflict trials). Subjects only worked with endogenous or exogenous single-task blocks. The exact combination of tasks and the presence

of conflict were manipulated across between-subject conditions. Twenty participants each were randomly assigned to one of four conditions. The between-subject control condition was further divided into two groups of 10 subjects each. The “pure endo” group performed only the endogenous task throughout the entire experimental session whereas the “pure exo” group performed only the exogenous task. Conflict from the non-relevant task was presented selleck randomly with p = .5. In the main experimental condition, the “exo/endo” condition, participants alternated between endogenous and exogenous task blocks. Conflict from the currently irrelevant task could occur with probability LDN193189 of p = .5. The “exo/endo–noconflict” condition was identical to the exo/endo condition, only that while performing

the endogenous task, subjects never experienced conflict from exogenous stimuli. Finally, the “exo–noconflict/endo” condition was again identical to the exo/endo condition, except that subjects never experienced endogenous-task conflict while performing the exogenous task. In addition, in all blocks single-task performance was interrupted by a math task. For these trials, the standard stimulus display disappeared and instead, an equation of the type “7 * 8 − 24 = 32” was shown, positioned at the center of the screen

(Times font, size = 24). Problems were constrained mafosfamide to produce solutions in the positive range. Participants used the arrow keys to indicate whether the equation was correct or incorrect (left key = incorrect, right key = correct). The probability of correct equations was p = .5. Incorrect equations were off by ±1 or 2. Immediately after responding the next endogenous or exogenous-task stimulus display appeared. For each trial, the probability of a number task was p = .25, with the constraint that two number trials could not occur consecutively. In case of either primary-task or interruption-task errors a short error tone occurred. In the between-subject control condition, subjects began with one 80-trial practice block; in the remaining conditions with alternating task blocks, subjects began with two 80-trial practice blocks, one for each task and with the order counterbalanced across subjects. Practice blocks were in all aspects identical to the actual test blocks. Then followed eight additional blocks, either of the same task (in the between-subject control condition) or alternating between the two tasks. For the alternating condition, onscreen instructions prior to each block indicated the currently relevant task. We excluded all error trials and non-math trials with RTs larger than 4000 ms.