ArticlePsychological research2026
Affective cost asymmetry in task switching: behavioral and electrophysiological evidence.
Article in Psychological research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Task switching is fundamental to everyday behavior and language use but can elicit more negative experiences than those elicited by task repetition, defined as affective costs. However, whether affective costs differ between switches to dominant and non-dominant tasks remains unclear. Examining this question can help determine whether affective costs reflect general transition demands alone or also direction-specific control processes. We addressed this issue in three progressively designed experiments. Experiments 1 and 2 combined task switching and affective priming paradigms to examine general task switching and language task switching, respectively, whereas Experiment 3 used event-related potentials (ERPs) to probe the electrophysiological underpinnings. Across all experiments, switching to non-dominant tasks produced greater affective costs than switching to dominant tasks, demonstrating affective cost asymmetry. Non-dominant switches elicited larger EPN and LPP amplitudes, suggesting that early attentional capture accompanies this asymmetry and that sustained emotional processing may contribute to its formation. Together, these findings suggest that affective costs may be jointly shaped by general transition demands and direction-specific control processes, supporting a direction-sensitive account of the affective consequences of task switching.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42848029What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.