\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={The Relationship between Anxiety and Task Switching Ability},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2014-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2014)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2014-01-15}
\title{The Relationship between Anxiety and Task Switching Ability}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Amara  Gul}

             \author[2]{Glyn W.  Humphreys}

             \affil[1]{  The University of Birmingham}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 16 December 2013 Accepted: 5 January 2014 Published: 15 January 2014}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


This study examined task switching ability as a function of anxiety. Participants with mild anxiety switched between emotion and age classification among faces. There were few important results: (i) Individuals with anxiety categorized facial emotion faster than facial age (ii)There was a larger switch cost for age than the emotion categorization (iii) Anxiety was a significant predictor of task switch costs. We discussed why anxious individuals showed a deficit in cognitive control of facial attributes.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{task switching, emotion, face categorization, attention, cognition, anxiety.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
nxiety is a physiological state causing adverse effects on the cognitive, somatic, behavioral and emotional functioning of an individual \hyperref[b46]{(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 \hyperref[b52]{(Yiend \& Mathews, 2001}; see for review \hyperref[b6]{Bar-Haim et al., 2007;}\hyperref[b23]{Fox et al., 2001}\hyperref[b22]{Fox et al., , 2002;;}\hyperref[b44]{Sass et al., 2010)} due to having an altered activity in amygdalaprefrontal circuits \hyperref[b5]{(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  {\ref (Poy, Eixarch, \& Avila, 2004)}, especially in case when threat-related stimuli serve as invalid cues \hyperref[b22]{(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 \hyperref[b12]{(Bower, 1981}\hyperref[b13]{(Bower, , 1987))}. Neural substrates of anxiety related processes across all emotional faces are the activations in amygdala and anterior cingulate cortex \hyperref[b3]{(Ball et al., 2012)}. The attentional deployment towards emotional stimuli is linked with deficit in performance on several cognitive tasks such as emotional Stroop \hyperref[b47]{(Simpson et al., 2000;}\hyperref[b50]{Williams, Mathews, \& MacLeod, 1996;}\hyperref[b18]{Dresler et al., 2009)} and flanker task \hyperref[b20]{(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  {\ref (Meinhardt \& Pekron, 2003;}\hyperref[b25]{Hanoch \& Vitouch, 2004}). As a result interference arises. The attention deficit has been observed when individuals perform dual task  {\ref (Wood, Mathews, \& Dalgleish, 2001)} possibly because of depletion of attentional resources for the other task to be performed.\par
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  {\ref (Broadbent \& Boradbent, 1988;}\hyperref[b33]{Miskovic \& Schmidt, 2012)}. It has also been stated that high anxiety is associated with low working memory capacity \hyperref[b15]{(Darke, 1988;}\hyperref[b2]{Ashcraft \& Kirk, 2001}) and impairs the ability to inhibit goal-irrelevant information \hyperref[b41]{(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; \hyperref[b38]{Drevets \& Raichle, 1998)}.\par
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 \hyperref[b26]{(Jhonson, 2009)}. \hyperref[b24]{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).\par
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 \hyperref[b39]{(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. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{The Present Study}]{The Present Study}\par
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 \hyperref[b31]{(Meiran, 2000;}\hyperref[b36]{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 \hyperref[b29]{(Mayr \& Keele, 2000)} which involves simple activation of the task-set rule \hyperref[b43]{(Rubinstein, Evans, \& Meyer, 2001}) and inhibition of the task-rule relevant to the competing task-sets \hyperref[b29]{(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  {\ref (}  
\section[{b)}]{b)}\par
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. 
\section[{c) Procedure}]{c) Procedure}\par
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.\par
IV. 
\section[{Results}]{Results} 
\section[{a) Switching Experiment}]{a) Switching Experiment}\par
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.\par
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) 
\section[{b) Relationship between Anxiety Scores and Switch Costs}]{b) Relationship between Anxiety Scores and Switch Costs}\par
V. 
\section[{Discussion}]{Discussion}\par
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.\par
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 \hyperref[b19]{(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-   {\ref , 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- \hyperref[b3]{Ball et al., 2012)} to emotional faces has been observed in anxious individuals during their performance of Stroop task and face matching tasks.\par
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., \hyperref[b24]{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.\par
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 \hyperref[b5]{(Bishop, 2007)}. Anxiety is associated with deficits in working memory and inhibitory control \hyperref[b39]{(Eysenck \& Calvo, 1992;}\hyperref[b21]{Fox, 1994)}.\par
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. 
\section[{VI. Limitations and Future Directions}]{VI. Limitations and Future Directions}\par
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.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png}
\caption{\label{fig_1}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-4.png}
\caption{\label{fig_2}Figure 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2355421686746988\textwidth}P{0.4813253012048193\textwidth}P{0.13313253012048193\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep 1200\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep 1100\tabcellsep \\
reaction times (ms)\tabcellsep 600 700 800 900 1000\tabcellsep Emotion\\
Mean\tabcellsep 400 500\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep 300\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep 200\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Switch\tabcellsep Repeat\end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: Age (M=953.38ms) than repeat (M=623.00ms) trials. Errors (M) and Standard Errors (SE) in Task switching Experiment Allport et al.]} 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}}\end{figure}
 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[ Cogn. Emot]{b40}\label{b40} 	 		\textit{},  	 	 		\textit{Cogn. Emot}  		6 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hum and Neurosci]{b42}\label{b42} 	 		\textit{},  		 			Hum 		,  		 			Neurosci 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013}{10.3389/fnhum.2013}.  		7 p. 840.  	 
\bibitem[Bishop et al. ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		\textit{},  		 			S Bishop 		,  		 			M Brett 		,  		 			A D Lawrence 		.  		2004.  	 
\bibitem[Ball et al. ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		\textit{},  		 			T M Ball 		,  		 			S Sullivan 		,  		 			T Flagan 		,  		 			C A Hitchcock 		,  		 			A Simmons 		,  		 			M P Paulus 		,  		 			M B Stein 		.  		2012.  	 
\bibitem[Shin et al. ()]{b48}\label{b48} 	 		‘An fMRI study of anterior cingulate function in posttraumatic stress disorder’.  		 			L M Shin 		,  		 			P J Whalen 		,  		 			R K Pitman 		,  		 			G Bush 		,  		 			M L Macklin 		,  		 			L B Lasko 		.  	 	 		\textit{Biol. Psychiatry}  		2001. 50 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ansari et al. ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		 			T L Ansari 		,  		 			N Derakshan 		,  		 			A Richards 		.  		\textit{Effects of anxiety on task switching: evidence from the mixed saccade task. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience},  				2008. 8 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Yiend and Mathews ()]{b52}\label{b52} 	 		‘Anxiety and attention to threatening pictures’.  		 			J Yiend 		,  		 			A Mathews 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 54 A}  		2001.  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Broadbent and Broadbent ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘Anxiety and attentional bias: State and trait’.  		 			D Broadbent 		,  		 			M Broadbent 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cognition and Emotion}  		1988. 2 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Wood et al. ()]{b51}\label{b51} 	 		‘Anxiety and cognitive inhibition’.  		 			J Wood 		,  		 			A Mathew 		,  		 			T Dalgleish 		.  	 	 		\textit{Emotion}  		2001. 1 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Eysenck et al. ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘Anxiety and cognitive performance: attentional control theory’.  		 			M W Eysenck 		,  		 			N Derakshan 		,  		 			R Santos 		,  		 			M G \&calvo 		.  	 	 		\textit{Emotion}  		2007. 7 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Eysenck and Calvo ()]{b39}\label{b39} 	 		\textit{Anxiety and performance: the processing efficiency theory},  		 			M W Eysenck 		,  		 			M G Calvo 		.  		1992.  	 
\bibitem[Darke ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Anxiety and working memory capacity’.  		 			S Darke 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cognition and Emotion}  		1988. 2 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ansari and Derakshan ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘Anxiety impairs inhibitory control but not volitional action control’.  		 			T L Ansari 		,  		 			N Derakshan 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cognition \& Emotion}  		2010. 24  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Derakshan and Eysenck ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘Anxiety, processing efficiency, and cognitive performance: new developments from attentional control theory’.  		 			N Derakshan 		,  		 			M W Eysenck 		.  	 	 		\textit{European Psychologist}  		2009. 14 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Fox et al. ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		‘Attentional bias for threat: Evidence for delayed disengagement from emotional faces’.  		 			E Fox 		,  		 			R Russo 		,  		 			K Dutton 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cognition \& Emotion}  		2002. 16 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Fox ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		‘Attentional bias in anxiety: a defective inhibition hypothesis’.  		 			E Fox 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cogn. Emot}  		1994. 8 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Meinhardt and Pekrun ()]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		‘Attentional resource allocation to emotional events: An ERP study’.  		 			J Meinhardt 		,  		 			R Pekrun 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cognition \& Emotion}  		2003. 17 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bush et al. ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulate cortex’.  		 			G Bush 		,  		 			P Luu 		,  		 			M I Posner 		.  	 	 		\textit{Trends. Cogn.Sci}  		2000. 4 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bower ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		\textit{Commentary on mood and memory. Behavior Research and Therapy},  		 			G H Bower 		.  		1987. 25 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Monsell Driver (ed.)]{b32}\label{b32} 	 		\textit{Control of cognitive processes: Attention and Performance XVIII},  				 			In S Monsell,  			\& J Driver 		 (ed.)  		 (Cambridge)  		MIT Press. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rogers and Monsell ()]{b36}\label{b36} 	 		‘Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks’.  		 			R D Rogers 		,  		 			S Monsell 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Experimental Psychology: General}  		1995. 124  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Goodwin and Sher ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		‘Deficits in setshifting ability in non-clinical compulsive checkers’.  		 			A H Goodwin 		,  		 			K J Sher 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment}  		1992. 14 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Fox et al. ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		‘Do threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical anxiety’.  		 			E Fox 		,  		 			R Russo 		,  		 			R Bowles 		,  		 			K Dutton 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Experimental Psychology: General}  		2001. 130 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Miskovic and Schmidt ()]{b33}\label{b33} 	 		‘Early information processing biases in social anxiety’.  		 			V Miskovic 		,  		 			A L Schmidt 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cognition \& Emotion}  		2012. 26  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mogg et al. ()]{b34}\label{b34} 	 		‘Effects of threat cues on attentional shifting, disengagement and response slowing in anxious individuals’.  		 			K Mogg 		,  		 			A Holmes 		,  		 			M Garner 		,  		 			B P Bradley 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.02.011}{10.1016/j.brat.2008.02.011}.  	 	 		\textit{Behav Res Ther}  		2008. 46  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Jhonson ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		‘Emotional attention setshifting and Its relationship to anxiety and emotion regulation’.  		 			D R Jhonson 		.  	 	 		\textit{Emotion}  		2009. 9  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Dresler et al. ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘Emotional Stroop task: effect of word arousal and subject anxiety on emotional interference’.  		 			T Dresler 		,  		 			K Mériau 		,  		 			H R Heekeren 		,  		 			E Van Der Meer 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0154-6}{10.1007/s00426-008-0154-6}.  	 	 		\textit{Psychol Res}  		2009. 73  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rubinstein et al. ()]{b43}\label{b43} 	 		‘Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching’.  		 			J S Rubinstein 		,  		 			D E Meyer 		,  		 			J E Evans 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance}  		2001. 27  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Lovibond and Lovibond ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		‘Manual for the depression, anxiety, and stress scale’.  		 			S H Lovibond 		,  		 			P F Lovibond 		.  	 	 		\textit{Sydney: Psychology Foundation},  				1995.  	 	 (nd Ed) 
\bibitem[Fenske and Eastwood ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		‘Modulationof focused attention by faces expressing emotion: Evidence from flanker tasks’.  		 			M J Fenske 		,  		 			J D Eastwood 		.  	 	 		\textit{Emotion}  		2003. 3 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bower ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘Mood and memory’.  		 			G H Bower 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Psychologist}  		1981. 36 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bishop et al. ()]{b37}\label{b37} 	 		‘Neural processing of fearful faces: effects of anxiety are gated by perceptual capacity limitations’.  		 			S J Bishop 		,  		 			R Jenkins 		,  		 			A D Lawrence 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.10.011}{10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.10.011}.  	 	 		\textit{Cereb. Cortex}  		2006.  	 
\bibitem[Bishop ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘Neurocognitive mechanisms of anxiety: an integrative account’.  		 			S J Bishop 		.  	 	 		\textit{Trends in Cognitive Science}  		2007. 11  (7)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Poy et al. ()]{b35}\label{b35} 	 		‘On the relationship between attention and personality: covert visual orienting of attention in anxiety and impulsivity’.  		 			R Poy 		,  		 			M D Eixarch 		,  		 			C Ávila 		.  	 	 		\textit{Personality and Individual Differences}  		2004. 36 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Prefrontal cortical function and anxiety: controlling attention to threat-related stimuli Nat. Neurosci]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘Prefrontal cortical function and anxiety: controlling attention to threat-related stimuli’.  	 	 		\textit{Nat. Neurosci}  		7 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Schneider et al. ()]{b45}\label{b45} 	 		\textit{Prime user's guide},  		 			W Schneider 		,  		 			A Eschman 		,  		 			A Zuccolotto 		.  		2002. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.  	 
\bibitem[Weisser et al. ()]{b49}\label{b49} 	 		‘Processing the attentional control theory in social anxiety: An emotional saccade task’.  		 			M J Weisser 		,  		 			P Pauli 		,  		 			A \&muhlberg 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cognitive, Affective, \& Behavioral Neuroscience}  		2009. 9  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Brown et al. ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Psychometric properties of the depression, anxiety, and stress scale (DASS) in clinical samples’.  		 			T A Brown 		,  		 			B F Chorpita 		,  		 			W Korotitsch 		,  		 			D H Barlow 		.  	 	 		\textit{Behavioral Research and Therapy}  		1997. 35  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Drevets and Raichle ()]{b38}\label{b38} 	 		‘Reciprocal suppression of regional cerebral blood flow during emotional vs. Higher cognitive processing: Implications for interactions between emotion and cognition’.  		 			W C Drevets 		,  		 			M E Raichle 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cognition \& Emotion}  		1998. 12 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Meiran ()]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		\textit{Reconfiguration of stimulus tasksets and response task-sets during task-switching},  		 			N Meiran 		.  		2000.  	 
\bibitem[Mathew and Macleod ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		‘Selection processing of threat cues in anxiety states’.  		 			A M Mathew 		,  		 			C Macleod 		.  	 	 		\textit{Behavior Research and Therapy}  		1985. 23 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Selective effects of social anxiety, anxiety sensitivity, and negative affectivity on the neural bases of emotional face processing Neuroimage]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘Selective effects of social anxiety, anxiety sensitivity, and negative affectivity on the neural bases of emotional face processing’.  	 	 		\textit{Neuroimage}  		59 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Seligman et al. ()]{b46}\label{b46} 	 		 			M E P Seligman 		,  		 			E F Walker 		,  		 			D L Rosenhan 		.  		\textit{Abnormal psychology},  				 (New York)  		2001. W.W. Norton \& Company.  	 	 (4th ed.) 
\bibitem[Moriya and Sugiura ()]{b41}\label{b41} 	 		\textit{Socially anxious individuals with low working memory capacity could not inhibit the goal-irrelevant information},  		 			J Moriya 		,  		 			Y Sugiura 		.  		2013. Front.  	 
\bibitem[Bishop et al. ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘State anxiety modulation of the amygdala response to unattended threat-related stimuli’.  		 			S J Bishop 		,  		 			J Duncan 		,  		 			A D Lawrence 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Neuroscience}  		2004. 24  (46)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mayr and Keele ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		‘Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval’.  		 			U Mayr 		,  		 			S Keele 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition}  		2000. 26 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Simpson et al. ()]{b47}\label{b47} 	 		‘The emotional modulation of cognitive processing: An fMRI study’.  		 			J R Simpson 		,  		 			D Ongu¨ R 		,  		 			E Akbudak 		,  		 			T E Conturo 		,  		 			J M Ollinger 		,  		 			A Z Snyder 		,  		 			D A Gusnard 		,  		 			M E Raichle 		.  	 	 		\textit{J Cogn Neurosci}  		2000. 12 p. .  	 
\bibitem[De Ruiter and Brosschot ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		‘The emotional Stroop interference in anxiety: Attentional bias or cognitive avoidance’.  		 			C De Ruiter 		,  		 			J F Brosschot 		.  	 	 		\textit{Behaviour Research \& Therapy}  		1994. 32 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Williams et al. ()]{b50}\label{b50} 	 		‘The emotional Stroop task and Psychopathology’.  		 			J M G Williams 		,  		 			A Mathews 		,  		 			C Macleod 		.  	 	 		\textit{Psychological Bulletin}  		1996. 120  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ashcraft and Kirk ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘The relationship among working memory, math anxiety, and performance’.  		 			M H Ashcraft 		,  		 			E P Kirk 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Experimental Psychology: General}  		2001. 130 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bar-Haim et al. ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Threat related attentional bias in anxious and non anxious individuals: a meta-analytic study’.  		 			Y Bar-Haim 		,  		 			D Lamy 		,  		 			L Pergamin 		,  		 			M J Bakermans-Kranenburg 		,  		 			M H Van Ijzendoorn 		.  	 	 		\textit{Psychological Bulletin}  		2007.  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sass et al. ()]{b44}\label{b44} 	 		‘Time course of attentional bias in anxiety: Emotion and gender specificity’.  		 			M S Sass 		,  		 			W Heller 		,  		 			L J Stewart 		.  	 	 		\textit{Psychophysiology}  		2010. 47 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hanoch and Vitouch ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		‘When less is more: Information, emotional arousal and the ecological reframing of the Yerkes-Dodson law’.  		 			Y Hanoch 		,  		 			O Vitouch 		.  	 	 		\textit{Theory Psychol}  		2004. 14 p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
