# Introduction nxiety is a physiological state causing adverse effects on the cognitive, somatic, behavioral and emotional functioning of an individual (Seligman, Walker, & Rosenhan, 2001). Previous research has suggested that anxiety is associated with cognitive and attentional bias, for example, difficulty in disengaging attention from emotional stimuli among anxious individuals has been observed both for words and pictures (Yiend & Mathews, 2001; see for review Bar-Haim et al., 2007;Fox et al., 2001Fox et al., , 2002;;Sass et al., 2010) due to having an altered activity in amygdalaprefrontal circuits (Bishop, 2007). Studies using spatial cueing paradigm also report that anxiety impairs inhibition and attentional control as a result causes a decline in efficiency. For example, it is harder for anxious individuals to disengage attention from invalid cues (providing misleading information) than non-anxious individuals (Poy, Eixarch, & Avila, 2004), especially in case when threat-related stimuli serve as invalid cues (Fox et al., 2002). In an emotionl Stroop task, anxious individuals display interference on threat words (de-Ruiter & Brosschot, 1994) which can be attributed towards the activation of emotion nodes in semantic memory and facilitates the attention towards emotion congruent stimuli (Bower, 1981(Bower, , 1987)). Neural substrates of anxiety related processes across all emotional faces are the activations in amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex (Ball et al., 2012). The attentional deployment towards emotional stimuli is linked with deficit in performance on several cognitive tasks such as emotional Stroop (Simpson et al., 2000;Williams, Mathews, & MacLeod, 1996;Dresler et al., 2009) and flanker task (Fenske & Eastwood, 2003). Such allocation of attention is high when individuals perform cognitive tasks which are high in demand or negative emotional states such as anxiety exceeds an optimal level (Meinhardt & Pekron, 2003;Hanoch & Vitouch, 2004). As a result interference arises. The attention deficit has been observed when individuals perform dual task (Wood, Mathews, & Dalgleish, 2001) possibly because of depletion of attentional resources for the other task to be performed. Individuals with high and low anxiety differ in their attentional allocation to emotion-related information. High anxious individuals showed a greater difficulty in disengaging attention from the spatial location of emotional cues than low anxious individuals (Mogg, Holmes, Garner, & Bradley, 2008; Fox, Russo, & Dutton, 2002). High anxious individuals show preferential attentional capture to emotional stimuli (Broadbent & Boradbent, 1988;Miskovic & Schmidt, 2012). It has also been stated that high anxiety is associated with low working memory capacity (Darke, 1988;Ashcraft & Kirk, 2001) and impairs the ability to inhibit goal-irrelevant information (Moriya & Sugiura, 2013). Bishop, Duncan, Brett, and Lawrence (2004) observed decreased activation of lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) and rostral anterior cingulate cortex (ACCpart of brain's limbic system) in high anxious individuals when presented with more threat related distracting stimuli than the control condition (i.e., fewer threatrelated stimuli). The rostral ACC is involved in emotional processing and LPFC establishes cognitive control during attentionally demanding and higher cognitive tasks (for review Bush, Luu, & Posner, 2000; Drevets & Raichle, 1998). A large body of literature suggested that anxiety impaired the volitional control of attention (which relies on the prefrontal neuronal circuits), for example, when anxious individuals were presented with facial expressions in peripheral field of vision and in response performed either pro or antisaccades, they exhibited more erratic prosaccades to facial expressions when antisaccade was required (Wieser, Paul, & Muhlberger, 2009). Similar results were found by Ansari, Derakshan, and Richards (2008) in a mixed antisaccade paradigm. Their participants performed a single task (i.e., separate blocks of anti and prosaccade trials) and mixed task (i.e., anti and prosaccade trials in random order within a blocks). Low anxious participants showed a switch benefit in antisaccade latencies within mixed task block when antisaccade trial was preceded by a switch trial compared to the condition where antisaccade trial was preceded by a repeat trial. However, high anxious individuals exhibited no improvement. The presence of anxiety can modulate the shifting ability (Jhonson, 2009). Goodwin and Sher (1992) reported worse shifting ability of high anxious than low anxious individuals (slower and more error-prone performance as measured by Wisconsin Card Sorting Task). The above mentioned findings can be seen in the context of the attentional control theory (Eysenck, Derakshan, Santos, & Calvo, 2007) derived from the processing efficiency theory (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992). Anxiety impairs the central executive functions such as inhibition and shifting. It has an adverse effect on the goal-directed and stimulus-driven attentional system. The cognitive performance is decreased due to an increased attention to emotion-related stimuli and a reduced attentional control. # II. # The Present Study Since the attentional bias in anxiety has widely been studied in distraction paradigms, but has not been assessed in task switching paradigm, it is unclear how anxiety modulates attention during switching between face categorization tasks. Task switching paradigm examines the central executive functions of inhibition, shifting and updating of the working memory representations. In task switching experiments, participants switch between two different tasks. Performance is faster on the trials when the task is repeated (repeat trials) than when it is changed (switch trials) producing switch cost (larger latencies and higher error rates for switch vs. repeat trials). Participant has to respond the alternate task-sets (Meiran, 2000;Rogers & Monsell, 1995), thus a cost on response times (i.e., reaction times) arises from the significant delay in adoption of the new task-set (Mayr & Keele, 2000) which involves simple activation of the task-set rule (Rubinstein, Evans, & Meyer, 2001) and inhibition of the task-rule relevant to the competing task-sets (Mayr & Keele, 2000). In the present study, we examined whether mild anxiety modulates task switching ability. Consistent with the argument that anxiety impairs central executive functions such as inhibition, shifting and attentional allocation ( # b) The switching experiment was designed with 32 facial photographs which portrayed happy and angry expressions. The experiment was designed with Rogers and Monsell's (1995) alternating-run task switching paradigm where the task changed every second trial. The order of the tasks was counterbalanced across participants. For half of the participants the order of the tasks started from emotion while for other half of the participants the order of the tasks started with the age task first. The experiment was designed in E-prime software (Schneider, Eschman, & Zuccolotto, 2002, version1.2) and was presented on computer screen. Background colors of the screen served as cue to the tasks. Participants made manual responses to the tasks using the key board. Total trials of the experiment were 241. # c) Procedure Participants were given description of the experiment, following they performed the experiment in a silent room. They were said thanks for their participation and debriefed at end of the session. IV. # Results # a) Switching Experiment Response times (RTs) were excluded above 2.5 standard deviations from each participants' mean. RTs for the first trial were discarded because no task switch took place. The switch costs (mean RTs switch minus repeat trials) were calculated subsequently, mean RTs were submitted to a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with trial (switch vs. repeat), and task (emotion vs. age) as within subject factors. The main effect of trial was significant F (1, 23) =164.00, p<0.001, ?p2=.87. RTs were slower on switch Volume XIV Issue VI Version I Emotion Task .01 (.00) .07 (.00) Age Task .09 (.00) .14 (.00) # b) Relationship between Anxiety Scores and Switch Costs V. # Discussion There were two main aspects of the study. The first was the relative ease of switching between emotion and a non-emotion attribute of a face among mild anxious individuals. The second objective was to examine the relationship between anxiety and task switching abilities specifically when tasks of social significance are involved. Our results showed an asymmetry in switch costs with the effect on age decisions being larger than those on emotion decisions, although the emotion was an overall easier task. Interestingly, this effect emerged only among anxious individuals. This result supported the first hypothesis of the study. Switching between tasks of unequal difficulty is not symmetric often produces larger switch costs for the easier of the two tasks and has been attributed to the inhibition of the difficult task which is difficult to engage with while easier of the two tasks is more automatically performed (e.g., showed that emotion decisions were faster than the age decisions on repeat trials, we cannot attribute the asymmetry to the inhibition of the easier task because then the switch cost would have shown an opposite pattern (i.e., larger for the emotion than the age task). Rather the switch costs depict that the facial emotion is difficult to disengage from, thus switch costs are increased to the age task. As switching requires a successful manipulation of attentional control to allocate resources to the relevant task (Eysenck et al., 2007) and disengage the attention from the task which is irrelevant on the current trial, therefore in the current perspective, it seems that there is a diminished ability of disengaging attention from emotion attribute of the face, therefore performance on the non-emotion task has been suffered among anxious individuals. The preferential processing/ enhanced attentional allocation (i.e., enhanced P 100- , 1994). The results in the present study Regression analysis with anxiety scores as independent and switch costs (i.e., difference between RTs on switch and repeat trials) as dependent variable showed a significant result F (1, 23) =31.83, p<0.001, R 2 = 0.59. Hence, the independent variable explained almost 59% of the variance of the switch costs. Standard regression coefficients showed that anxiety scores, ?=0.76, t=5.64, p<0.001 made positive contribution toward the explanation of switch costs. activity- Ball et al., 2012) to emotional faces has been observed in anxious individuals during their performance of Stroop task and face matching tasks. In addition, switch cost for the age was increased with the level of anxiety. The results indicate the difficulty in switching attention from facial emotion to compute age, slowing the age decisions on switch trials in anxious individuals. This tendency is increased with high anxiety scores. Consistent with these findings, it is convincing to say that individuals with anxiety are unable to manipulate their attentional resources in order to exert an efficient cognitive control. This conclusion is also supported by the previous research (e.g., which suggests that anxiety reduces top-down control over emotional distractors evident in the reduced recruitment of the neural network involving the cortical areas-ACC (anterior cingulate cortex) and LPFC (lateral prefrontal cortex) which are engaged in cognitive control and reduces performance on tasks which involve shifting (e.g., Goodwin & Sher, 1992) Our results are consistent with the previous research suggesting the deficit of attentional deployment away from the emotional stimuli in anxious individuals, but at the same time it is important to note that the previous studies have employed differential paradigms, for example the picture version of dot-probe paradigm (MacLeod, Mathews, & Tata, 1986) where individuals are presented with two pictures (emotionalnon emotional) simultaneously followed by a simple probe to which a response has to be made. The efficiency of response to the probe following the emotional picture compared with non-emotional picture determines the attentioanl bias to the emotional picture. The similar results have been found in studies using spatial cuing task (e.g., Fox, Russo, Bowles, & Dutton, 2001; Fox, Russo, & Dutton, 2002; Mogg, Holmes, Garner, & Bradley, 2008) where a single emotional face is presented as a cue for a simple probe which can either appear on the same or on a different location of the emotional face. The high anxious individuals take longer to disengage attention from the emotional face. Here we used task switching paradigm where the participant has to make decisions of the emotion/age of a single emotional face which alternates every trial. As the participants are engaged in a different task every second trial while the face is alternated every trial-it provides a measure of cognitive control and reflects the allocation of attentional resources. The neurocognitive mechanisms of anxiety support a common amygdala-prefrontal circuitry during cognitive-affective processing. The anxiety is characterized by the hyper-activation of the amygdala toward emotional stimuli and a prefrontal underrecruitment to modulate the activation of amygdala at neural level. As a result the cognitive system is biased due to the activation of emotion-related representations and a failure to implement cognitive control to inhibit the emotion-related representation in order to activate the non-emotion representations (Bishop, 2007). Anxiety is associated with deficits in working memory and inhibitory control (Eysenck & Calvo, 1992;Fox, 1994). The results of the present study showed that attentional bias toward emotion interfered to compute age among faces; as a result the switching ability suffered. # VI. Limitations and Future Directions The present study employed a small number of non-clinical sample. Thus, future research must include comparatively larger sample and clinically significant level of anxiety. Results of the present study have implications to understand affective disorders and to design therapeutic interventions for anxiety disorders. As a conclusion, anxiety impairs cognitive control of emotional stimuli (i.e., greater engagement with emotion). As a result, the non-emotion task endures greater switching cost than the emotion task. Mild anxiety predicts switch costs. ![24 postgraduate students (ages 22-25 years, mean 23.50 years) with mild anxiety as an inclusion criteria for the sample participated in the study. Half of them were female. They were screened with a subscale of anxietyin the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale(Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) which has good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=.89;Brown et al., 1997) and test-retest reliability for the current sample (r=.98,p<0.001). The Anxiety scale is a screening instrument to assess autonomic arousal, skeletal muscle effects, situational anxiety, and subjective experience of anxious affect among normal adolescents and adults. Subjects responded using 4-point severity/frequency scales to rate the extent to which they have experienced each state over the past week. The questionnaires were marked according to the score range 0-7 = normal, 8-9= mild anxiety, 10-14 = moderate, 15-19=severe anxiety, 20 and above = extremely severe.](image-2.png "") ![Human Social Science © 2014 Global Journals Inc. (US)-The Relationship between Anxiety and Task Switching Ability](image-3.png "") 1![Figure 1 : Mean reaction times (ms) in task switching experiment. Error bars represent standard errors.](image-4.png "Figure 1 :") 112001100reaction times (ms)600 700 800 900 1000EmotionMean400 500300200SwitchRepeatAge (M=953.38ms) than repeat (M=623.00ms) trials. Errors (M) and Standard Errors (SE) in Task switching Experiment Allport et al. * TLAnsari NDerakshan ARichards Effects of anxiety on task switching: evidence from the mixed saccade task. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience 2008 8 * Anxiety impairs inhibitory control but not volitional action control TLAnsari NDerakshan Cognition & Emotion 24 2 2010 * The relationship among working memory, math anxiety, and performance MHAshcraft EPKirk Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130 2001 * TMBall SSullivan TFlagan CAHitchcock ASimmons MPPaulus MBStein 2012 * Selective effects of social anxiety, anxiety sensitivity, and negative affectivity on the neural bases of emotional face processing Neuroimage 59 * Neurocognitive mechanisms of anxiety: an integrative account SJBishop Trends in Cognitive Science 11 7 2007 * Threat related attentional bias in anxious and non anxious individuals: a meta-analytic study YBar-Haim DLamy LPergamin MJBakermans-Kranenburg MHVan Ijzendoorn Psychological Bulletin 1 2007 * SBishop MBrett ADLawrence 2004 * Prefrontal cortical function and anxiety: controlling attention to threat-related stimuli Nat. Neurosci 7 * State anxiety modulation of the amygdala response to unattended threat-related stimuli SJBishop JDuncan ADLawrence Journal of Neuroscience 24 46 2004 * Psychometric properties of the depression, anxiety, and stress scale (DASS) in clinical samples TABrown BFChorpita WKorotitsch DHBarlow Behavioral Research and Therapy 35 1 1997 * Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulate cortex GBush PLuu MIPosner Trends. Cogn.Sci 4 2000 * Mood and memory GHBower American Psychologist 36 1981 * Commentary on mood and memory. Behavior Research and Therapy GHBower 1987 25 * Anxiety and attentional bias: State and trait DBroadbent MBroadbent Cognition and Emotion 2 1988 * Anxiety and working memory capacity SDarke Cognition and Emotion 2 1988 * The emotional Stroop interference in anxiety: Attentional bias or cognitive avoidance CDe Ruiter JFBrosschot Behaviour Research & Therapy 32 1994 * Anxiety, processing efficiency, and cognitive performance: new developments from attentional control theory NDerakshan MWEysenck European Psychologist 14 2009 * Emotional Stroop task: effect of word arousal and subject anxiety on emotional interference TDresler KMériau HRHeekeren EVan Der Meer 10.1007/s00426-008-0154-6 Psychol Res 73 3 2009 * Anxiety and cognitive performance: attentional control theory MWEysenck NDerakshan RSantos MG&calvo Emotion 7 2007 * Modulationof focused attention by faces expressing emotion: Evidence from flanker tasks MJFenske JDEastwood Emotion 3 2003 * Attentional bias in anxiety: a defective inhibition hypothesis EFox Cogn. Emot 8 1994 * Attentional bias for threat: Evidence for delayed disengagement from emotional faces EFox RRusso KDutton Cognition & Emotion 16 2002 * Do threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical anxiety EFox RRusso RBowles KDutton Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130 2001 * Deficits in setshifting ability in non-clinical compulsive checkers AHGoodwin KJSher Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 14 1992 * When less is more: Information, emotional arousal and the ecological reframing of the Yerkes-Dodson law YHanoch OVitouch Theory Psychol 14 2004 * Emotional attention setshifting and Its relationship to anxiety and emotion regulation DRJhonson Emotion 9 5 2009 * Manual for the depression, anxiety, and stress scale SHLovibond PFLovibond Sydney: Psychology Foundation 1995 nd Ed * Selection processing of threat cues in anxiety states AMMathew CMacleod Behavior Research and Therapy 23 1985 * Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval UMayr SKeele Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26 2000 * Attentional resource allocation to emotional events: An ERP study JMeinhardt RPekrun Cognition & Emotion 17 2003 * Reconfiguration of stimulus tasksets and response task-sets during task-switching NMeiran 2000 * Control of cognitive processes: Attention and Performance XVIII InSMonsell & JDriver Cambridge MIT Press * Early information processing biases in social anxiety VMiskovic ALSchmidt Cognition & Emotion 26 1 2012 * Effects of threat cues on attentional shifting, disengagement and response slowing in anxious individuals KMogg AHolmes MGarner BPBradley 10.1016/j.brat.2008.02.011 Behav Res Ther 46 5 2008 * On the relationship between attention and personality: covert visual orienting of attention in anxiety and impulsivity RPoy MDEixarch CÁvila Personality and Individual Differences 36 2004 * Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks RDRogers SMonsell Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124 2 1995 * Neural processing of fearful faces: effects of anxiety are gated by perceptual capacity limitations SJBishop RJenkins ADLawrence 10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.10.011 Cereb. Cortex 2006 * Reciprocal suppression of regional cerebral blood flow during emotional vs. Higher cognitive processing: Implications for interactions between emotion and cognition WCDrevets MERaichle Cognition & Emotion 12 1998 * Anxiety and performance: the processing efficiency theory MWEysenck MGCalvo 1992 * Cogn. Emot 6 * Socially anxious individuals with low working memory capacity could not inhibit the goal-irrelevant information JMoriya YSugiura 2013 Front * Hum Neurosci 10.3389/fnhum.2013 7 840 * Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching JSRubinstein DEMeyer JEEvans Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 27 4 2001 * Time course of attentional bias in anxiety: Emotion and gender specificity MSSass WHeller LJStewart Psychophysiology 47 2010 * Prime user's guide WSchneider AEschman AZuccolotto 2002 Psychology Software Tools, Inc Pittsburgh, PA * ME PSeligman EFWalker DLRosenhan Abnormal psychology New York W.W. Norton & Company 2001 4th ed. * The emotional modulation of cognitive processing: An fMRI study JRSimpson DOngu¨ R EAkbudak TEConturo JMOllinger AZSnyder DAGusnard MERaichle J Cogn Neurosci 12 2000 * An fMRI study of anterior cingulate function in posttraumatic stress disorder LMShin PJWhalen RKPitman GBush MLMacklin LBLasko Biol. Psychiatry 50 2001 * Processing the attentional control theory in social anxiety: An emotional saccade task MJWeisser PPauli A&muhlberg Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 9 3 2009 * The emotional Stroop task and Psychopathology JM GWilliams AMathews CMacleod Psychological Bulletin 120 1 1996 * Anxiety and cognitive inhibition JWood AMathew TDalgleish Emotion 1 2001 * Anxiety and attention to threatening pictures JYiend AMathews The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 54 A 3 2001