Skip to main content
Log in

Action plan interrupted: resolution of proactive interference while coordinating execution of multiple action plans during sleep deprivation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ability to retain an action plan to execute another is necessary for most complex, goal-directed behavior. Research shows that executing an action plan to an interrupting event can be delayed when it partly overlaps (vs. does not overlap) with the retained action plan. This phenomenon is known as partial repetition costs (PRCs). PRCs reflect proactive interference, which may be resolved by inhibitory, executive control processes. We investigated whether these inhibitory processes are compromised due to one night of sleep deprivation. Participants were randomized to a sleep-deprived group or a well-rested control group. All participants performed an action planning task at baseline after a full night of sleep, and again either after a night of sleep deprivation (sleep-deprived group) or a full night of sleep (control group). In this task, two visual events occurred in a sequence. Participants retained an action plan to the first event in working memory while executing a speeded action to the second (interrupting) event; afterwards, they executed the action to the first event. The two action plans either partly overlapped (required the same hand) or did not (required different hands). Results showed slower responses to the interrupting event during sleep deprivation compared to baseline and the control group. However, the magnitude of the PRCs was no different during sleep deprivation compared to baseline and the control group. Thus, one night of sleep deprivation slowed global responses to the interruption, but inhibitory processes involved in reducing proactive interference while responding to an interrupting event were not compromised. These findings are consistent with other studies that show sleep deprivation degrades global task performance, but does not necessarily degrade performance on isolated, executive control components of cognition. The possibility that our findings involve local as opposed to central inhibition is also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This criterion was less conservative than the criterion of 80% used in past studies with college students; applying the typical criterion of 80% would have led to a much larger exclusion (n = 17 participants). Importantly, the outcome of the study did not change when using a criterion of 70% or 80%; we chose to use 70% to include more participant data.

  2. Assessing accuracy of Action A was necessary to ensure participants retained the action plan to the first event in memory while executing their response to the interruption (Action B). The accuracy results for Action A have to be interpreted with caution as participant inclusion required that they achieve 70% accuracy in the baseline session (session 1). However, there was no evidence that Action A accuracy was affected by any of the manipulations, which suggests that retaining and recalling action A was not significantly compromised by sleep deprivation in this study. Note also that RT for Action A was not analyzed as it was confounded with responses executed to Action B. That is, when there is feature overlap (i.e., Actions A and B share the same response hand), the motor response for Action A has to wait for Action B to finish before it can start, but when there is no feature overlap, the motor response for Action A does not necessarily have to wait for Action B to finish before it can start.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the staff of the Human Sleep and Cognition Laboratory in the Sleep and Performance Research Center at Washington State University for their help conducting the study. This research was supported by Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-13-1-0302.

Funding

This research was supported by Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-13-1-0302 awarded to co-author, Hans Van Dongen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa R. Fournier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fournier, L.R., Hansen, D.A., Stubblefield, A.M. et al. Action plan interrupted: resolution of proactive interference while coordinating execution of multiple action plans during sleep deprivation. Psychological Research 84, 454–467 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1054-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1054-z

Navigation