Prof. Dr. Gesine Dreisbach

• 1997: Diploma (Psychology), Berlin University of Technology.
• 2000: Doctorate (Dr phil.), Helmut-Schmidt-University, Hamburg. First supervisor: Professor Rainer H. Kluwe.
• 2007: Habilitation (second thesis), Dresden University of Technology. First reviewer: Professor Thomas Goschke.

• 1997 - 2000: PhD student at the Institute for Cognitive Research at the Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg
• 2000 - 2001: Postdoc at the Center for the Study of Mind, Brain, and Behavior; Prof. Dr Jonathan D. Cohen, Princeton University, USA
• 2002 - 2008: Research Assistant, TU Dresden
• 10/2006 - 9/2007: Deputy Professor of General Psychology II at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt/M.
• 10/2008 - 9/2009: Professor, General Psychology II, University of Bielefeld
• Since 10/2009: Professor, Chair of General and Applied Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Regensburg
• 2017: Visiting Professor at Leiden University, Holland, funded by KNAW (the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences)

• Chairwoman of the B.Sc. Psychology examination boards (10/2010 - 9/2020)
• Member of examination boards and study programme commissions B.Sc. Psychology and M.Sc. Psychological Science
• Managing Director of the Institute of Psychology (10/2020-9/2023)
• Dean of the Faculty of Human Sciences (since 10/2023)

In my research, I focus on processes of cognitive control. Cognitive control enables humans to dynamically adjust thought and action to changing goals and task demands.To give just one example: Cognitive control allows people to resist a strong but currently inappropriate response tendency (e.g., reaching for their mobile phone to check for possible news) and instead choose a weaker but appropriate response (e.g., listening to their partner).

Broadly speaking, my research interests revolve around five issues:

1. Task switching and the functional role of task rules
2. Context-sensitive adjustment of cognitive control
3. Conflicts as aversive signals for control adaptations
4. Affective and motivational modulation of cognitive control
5. Training of executive functions

• Mendl, J., Bratzke, D., & Dreisbach, G. (2026). Task switching promotes switch readiness: Evidence from forced and voluntary task switching. Cognition, 271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2026.106458
• Lück, I., Jung, A. C., Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2025). The (in)flexibility of updating a mental task representation: On the origins of costs when shifting from a task-switching to a single-task context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001334
• Götz, F.J., Dreisbach, G. How a co-actor’s (Un-) reliability modulates goal selection in a novel joint goal-setting paradigm. Psychological Research 89, 18 (2025). doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-02056-2
• Dreisbach, G., Musslick, S., & Braem, S. (2024). Flexibility and Stability can be both dependent and independent. Correspondence in Nature Reviews Psychology. doi: 10.1038/s44159-024-00348-3
• Calcott, R.*, Kolnes, M.*, van Steenbergen, H. & Dreisbach, G. (2024). The differential effects of reward prospect and reward reception: Dynamic performance adjustment versus stable performance. Motivation Science. https://dpo-org/10.1037/mot0000348
  *shared first authorship
• Mendl, J. Banerjee, S., Fischer, R., Dreisbach, G.*, & Köster, M.* (2024). Control in context: The theta rhythm provides evidence for reactive control but no evidence for proactive control. Psychophysiology, 00, e14625.
  *shared senior authorship
• Köllnberger, K., Bogon, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2024). Binding of the feature stimulus duration in the auditory domain: S-R or S-S binding; or both? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 0(0). doi.org/10.1177/17470218241287190
• Mendl, J., &  Dreisbach, G. (2024). Is task switching avoided to save effort or time? Shorter intertrial durations following task switches increase the willingness to switch tasks. Motivation Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000347
• Mendl, J., Fröber, K., & Dreisbach, G. (2024). Flexibility by association? No Evidence for an Influence of Cue-Transition Associations on Voluntary Task Switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 50(3), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001186
• Dreisbach, G. & Mendl, J. (2024). Flexibility as a matter of context, effort, and ability: evidence from the task-switching paradigm. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 55, 101348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2023.101348
• Dreisbach, G. (2023). Using the theory of constructed emotion to inform the study of cognition-emotion interactions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 30, 489–497. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02176-z
• Fröber, K., & Dreisbach, G. (2023). You can('t) always get what you want: When Goal Persistence Requires Flexibility. Motivation Science. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000297
• Köllnberger, K., Bogon, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2023). Binding time: Investigations on the integration of visual stimulus duration. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 76 (10), 2312-2328.
• Mendl, J. & Dreisbach, G. (2022). The role of objective and introspective switch costs in voluntary task choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001051
• Hommel, B., & Dreisbach, G. (2022). Cognitive resources, quo vadis? Editorial. Frontiers in Psychology, 12:994801. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.994801
• Jurczyk, V. Steinhauser, R., Dreisbach, G., & Steinhauser, M. (2022). To switch or to repeat? Commonalities and differences in the electrophysiological correlates of preparation for voluntary and forced task choices. Psychophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.14062
• Czacczkes, T. J., Berger, A., Koch, A. & Dreisbach, G. (2022). Conflict interference in an insect. Journal of Comparative Psychology. Vol. 136, No. 1, 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000294
• Fröber, K., Jurczyk, V., & Dreisbach, G. (2021). Keep flexible - keep switching? Boundary conditions of the influence of forced task switching on voluntary task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001104
• Fröber, K., Jurczyk, V., Mendl, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2021). Investigating anticipatory processes during sequentially changing reward prospect: An ERP study. Brain and Cognition. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2021.105815 full text
• Dreisbach, G. & Jurczyk, V. (2021). The role of objective and subjective effort costs on voluntary task choice. Psychological Research, published online August 29, 2021. link to full text
• Jurczyk, V., Fröber, K., & Dreisbach, G. (2021). Bottom-up influences on voluntary task switching in different reward contexts? Acta Psychologica. Online first https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103312
• Gable, P. & Dreisbach, G. (2021). Approach motivation and positive affect. Current Dpinion in Behavioral Sciences, 39, 203-208.
• Paul, K., Pourtois, G., van Steenbergen, H., Gable, P., & Dreisbach, G. (2021). Finding a balance: Modulatory effects of positive affect on attentional and cognitive control. Current Dpinion in Behavioral Sciences. 39, 163-141.
• Pereg, K., Harpaz, D., Sabah, K., BenShachar, M. S., Amir, I., Dreisbach, G. & Meiran, N. (2021) Lerning the ababstract general task structure in a rapidly changing task content. Journal of Cognition, 4(1): 31, pp. 1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.176
• Sabah, K., Meiran, N., & Dreisbach, G. (Jan 27, 2021). Examining the Trainabilityand Transferability of Working-Memory Gating Policies. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement. link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41465-021-00205-8 (open access).
• Fröber, K., & Dreisbach, G. (2020). How sequentially changing reward prospect modulates meta-control: Increasing reward prospect promotes cognitive flexibility. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-020-00825-1
• Berger, A., Dolk, T., Bogon, J. & Dreisbach, G. (2020). ChallengingVoices: Mixed evidence for context-specific control adjustments in the auditory domain. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.73(10) 1684–1694.
• Sabah, K., Dolk, T., Meiran, N. & Dreisbach, G. (2020). Enhancing task-demands disrupts learning but enhances transfer gains in short-term task switching training. Psychological Research. doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01335-y
• Fröber, K., Pittino, F., & Dreisbach, G. (2020). How sequential changes in reward expectation modulate cognitive control: Pupillometry as a tool to monitor dynamic changes in reward expectation. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 148,35-49.
• Hefer, C. & Dreisbach, G. (2020). Prospect of performance-contingent reward distorts the action-relevance of predictive context information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 46(2), 380–399.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000727
• Hefer, C. & Dreisbach, G. (2020). The volatile nature of positive affect effects: Opposite effects of positive affect and time on task on proactive control. Psychological Research, 84, 774-783. doi: 10.1007/s00426-018-1086-4.
• Fröber, K., Pfister, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2020). Increasing reward prospect promotes cognitive flexibility: Direct evidence from voluntary task switching with double registration. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 148, 35-49. doi: 10.1177/1747021818819449
• Berger, A., Fischer, R. & Dreisbach, G. (2019). It's more than just conflict: The functional role of congruency in the sequential control adaptation. Acta Psychologica, 197, 64-72. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.04.016
• Dreisbach, G. & Fröber, K. (2019). How to be flexible (or not): Modulation of the Flexibility-Stability-Balance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(1), 3-9. doi: 10.1177/0963721418800030
• Meiran, N., Dreisbach, G., & von Bastian, C. C. (2019). Mechanisms of working-memory training: Insights from individual differences. Intelligence, 73, 78-87. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2019.01.010
• Dreisbach, G., Fröber, K., Berger, A. & Fischer, R. (2018, October 4). Unexpected conflict signals loom larger in a positive context: Evidence from context specific control adjustments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000662
• Jurczyk, V., Fröber, K., & Dreisbach, G. (2018, October 25). Increasing reward prospect motivates switching to the more difficult task. Motivation Science. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/mot0000119
• Fischer R., Fröber, K. & Dreisbach, G. (2018). Shielding and Relaxation in Multitasking: Prospect of Reward Counteracts Relaxation of Task Shielding in Multitasking.  Acta Psychologica,191, 112-123. doi: 10.10167j.actpsy.2018.09.002
• Sabah, K. , Dolk, T., Meiran, N. & Dreisbach, G. (2018, Apr 5.). When less is more: : Costs and Benefits of Varied vs. Fixed Content and Structure in Short Term Task Switching Training. Psychological Research. doi:10.1007/s00426-018-1006-7. [Epub ahead of print]
• Dolk, T., Freigang, C., Bogon, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2018). Auditory (dis-)fluency triggers sequential processing adjustments. Acta Psychologica, 
  191, 69-75. This article has been retracted by the authors due to a coding error in the experimental files. Please do not cite!
• Czaczkes, T, Koch, A., Fröber, K., & Dreisbach, G. (2018). Voluntary switching in an invertebrate. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition. 44(3), 247-257.
• Aufschnaiter, S., Kiesel, A., Dreisbach, G., Wenke, D., & Thomaschke, R. (2018). Time-based expectancy in temporally structured task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44, 856-870.
• Fröber, K., Raith, L., & Dreisbach, G. (2018). The dynamic balance between cognitive flexibility and stability: the influcence of local changes in reward expectation and global task context on voluntary switch rate. Psychological Research, 82(1), 65-77. doi: 10.1007/s00426-017-0922-2.
• Dreisbach, G., Reindl, A.- L., & Fischer, R. (2018). Conflict and disfluency as aversive signals: Context-specific processing adjustments are modulated by affective location association. Psychological Research.  Volume: 82   Issue: 2  Pages: 324-336   DOI: 10.1007/s00426-016-0822-x
• Thomaschke, R., Bogon, J., & Dreisbach, G. (2017). Timing affect: Dimension-specific time-based expectancy for affect. Emotion. doi: 10.1037/emo0000380. [Epub ahead of print]
• Hefer, C., Cohen, A.-L., Jaudas, A., & Dreisbach, G. (2017). The flexible engagement of monitoring processes in non-focal and focal prospective memory tasks with salient cues. Acta Psychologica,179, 42-53.
• Bogon, J., Thomaschke, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2017). Binding time: Evidence for integration of temporal stimulus features. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics.Volume: 79   Issue: 5   Pages: 1290-1296  
• Hefer, C. & Dreisbach, G. (2017). How performance-contingent reward prospect modulates cognitive control: Increased cue maintenance at the cost of decreased flexibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.Volume: 43   Issue: 10   Pages: 1643-1658  
• Surrey, C., Dreisbach, G., & Fischer, R. (2017). Context-specific adjustment of cognitive control: Transfer of adaptive control sets. Quarlerly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 70(11), 2386-2401. doi:10.1080/17470218.2016.1239748.
• Fröber, K., Stürmer, B., Frömer, R. & Dreisbach, G. (2017). The role of affective evaluation in conflict adaptation: An LRP study. Brain and Cognition, 116, 9-16. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2017.05.003 full text
• Fröber, K. & Dreisbach, G. (2017). Keep flexible -- keep switching! The influence of  forced task switching on voluntary task switching. Cognition.162, 48-53. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.01.024
• Bogon, J., Eisenbarth, H., Landgraf, S. & Dreisbach, G. (2017). Shielding voices: The modulation of binding processes between voice features and response features by task representations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(9), 1856-1866. doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1209686.
• Hefer, C., & Dreisbach, G. (2016). The motivational modulation of proactive control in a modified version of the AX-Continuous Performance Task: Evidence from cue-based and prime-based preparation. Motivation Science, 2(2), 116-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000034
• Fröber, K. & Dreisbach, G. (2016). How performance (non-)contingent reward modulates cognitive control. Acta Psychologica,168, 65-77. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.04.008
• Cohen, A.-L., Gordon, A., Jaudas, A., Hefer, C. & Dreisbach, G. (2016). Let it go: The flexible engagement and disengagement of monitoring processes in a nonfocal prospective memory task. Psychological Research.
• Fröber, K. & Dreisbach, G. (2016). How sequential changes in reward magnitude modulate cognitive flexibility: Evidence from voluntary task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 285-295. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000166
• Dreisbach, G. & Fischer, R. (2016). Conflicts as aversive signals: Motivation for control adaptation in the service of affect regulation. In Todd S. Braver (Ed.). Motivation and Cognitive Control. Psychology Press, New York, NY. (pp. 188-210).
• Dreisbach, G. & Fischer, R. (2015). Conflicts as aversive signals for control adaptation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 255-260. DOI: 10.1177/0963721415569569
• Fischer, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2015). Predicting high levels of multitasking reduces between task interactions.  Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 41(6), 1482-1487.
• Fritz, J., Fischer, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2015). The influence of negative stimulus features on conflict adaptation: Evidence from fluency of processing. Frontiers in Cognition. 6  doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00185
• Thomaschke, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2015). The time-event correlation effect is due to temporal expectancy, not to partial transition costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 196-218.
• Fritz, J. & Dreisbach, G. (2015). The time course of the aversive conflict-signal. Experimental Psychology. 62(1), 30-39.
• Fischer, R., Plessow, F., Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2014). Individual differences in the context-dependent recruitment of cognitive control: Evidence from action versus state orientation. Journal of Personality.
• Thomaschke, R., Kunchulia, M., & Dreisbach, G. (2014). Time-based event expectations employ relative, not absolute, representations of time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review  DOI: 10.3758/s13423-014-0710-6
• Dreisbach, G. & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2014). Don't do it again... Directed forgetting of habits. Psychological Science. 25, 1242-1248.
• Fröber, K. & Dreisbach, G. (2014). The differential influences of positive affect, random reward, and performance-contingent reward on cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience. 14, 530-547. doi: 10.3758/s13415-014-0259-x
• Fischer, R., Gottschalk, C. & Dreisbach, G. (2014). Context-sensitive adjustment of cognitive control in dual task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. Volume: 40   Issue: 2   Pages: 399-416
• Böttcher, S. & Dreisbach, G. (2014). Socially triggered negative affect impairs performance in simple cognitive tasks. Psychological Research.78   Issue: 2  Pages: 151-165.
• Reisenauer, R. & Dreisbach, G. (2014). The shielding function of task rules in the context of task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 
  67, 358-376
• Pastötter, B., Dreisbach, G., & Bäuml, K.-H. T. (2013). Dynamic adjustments of cognitive control: Oscillatory correlates of the conflict-adaptation effect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 25, 2167-2178.
• Fritz, J. & Dreisbach, G. (2013). Conflicts as aversive signals: Conflict priming increases negative judgments for neutral stimuli. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 13, 311-317.
• Reisenauer, R. & Dreisbach, G. (2013). The impact of task rules on distracter processing: Automatic categorization of irrelevant stimuli. Psycholgical Research.doi: 10.1007/s00426-012-0413-4,  77, 128-138.
• Thomaschke, R. & Dreisbach, G. (2013). Temporal predictability facilitates action, not perception. Psychological Science, 24, 1335-1340.
• Dreisbach, G. & Fischer, R. (2012). The role of affect and reward in the conflict-triggered adjustment of cognitive control. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.6:342.doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00342  .
• Wendt, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., Reisenauer, R., Jacobsen, T. & Dreisbach, G. (2012). Sequential modulation of cue use in the task switching paradigm. Frontiers in Cognition. 3, 287 open access
• Fröber, K. & Dreisbach, G. (2012). How positive affect modulates proactive control: Reduced usage of informative cues under positive affect with low arousal. Frontiers in Cognition, 3, 265. download
• Dreisbach, G. (2012). Mechanisms of cognitive control: The functional role of task rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 227-231.
• Dreisbach, G. & Fischer, R. (2012). Conflicts as aversive signals. Brain & Cognition, 72, 94-98. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2011.12.003   download
• Dreisbach, G. & Wenke, D. (2011). The shielding function of task sets and its relaxation during task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 37,  1540-1546. doi: 10.1037/a0024077
• Dreisbach, G. & Fischer, R. (2011). If it's hard to read... try harder! Processing fluency as signal for effort adjustments. Psychological Research, 75, 376-383. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-010-0319-y.
• Metzker, M. & Dreisbach, G. (2011). Priming processes in the Simon Task: Evidence from the lexical decision task for a third route in the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception, and Performance, 37, 892-902.
• Dreisbach, G. & Boettcher, S. (2011). How the social-evaluative context modulates processes of cognitive control. Psychological Research, 75, 143-151. DOI: 10.107/s00426-010-0298-z link
• Metzker, M. & Dreisbach, G. (2009). Bidirectional priming processes in the Simon task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception, and Performance, 35, 1770-1783.
• Dreisbach, G. & Haider, H. (2009). How task representations guide attention: Further evidence for the shielding function of task sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 477-486. download
• Dreisbach, G. & Haider, H. (2008). That's what task sets are for: Shielding against irrelevant information. Psychological Research, 72, 355-361. download
• Fischer, R., Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2008). Context-sensitive adjustments of cognitive control: Conflict-adaptation effects are modulated by processing demands of the ongoing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 34(3), 712-718. download
• Goschke, T., & Dreisbach, G. (2008). Conflict-triggered goal-shielding attenuates background-monitoring for prospective memory cues. Psychological Science, 19, 25-32. download
• Dreisbach, G. (2008). Wie Stimmungen unser Denken beeinflussen. Report Psychologie, 33, 289-298. download
• Müller, J. , Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., Hensch, T., Lesch, K.-P., Brocke, B. (2007). Dopamine and cognitive control: The prospect of monetary gains influences the balance between flexibility and stability in a set-shifting paradigm. European Journal of Neuroscience. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05949.x  (available online)
• Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., & Haider H. (2007). The role of task-rules and stimulus-response mappings in the task switching paradigm. Psychological Research, 71, 383-392. download
• Müller, J., Dreisbach, G., Brocke, B., Lesch, K. P., Strobel, A. & Goschke, T. (2007). Dopamine and cognitive control: The influence of spontaneous eyeblink rate, DRD4 exon III polymorphism and gender on flexibility in set-shifting. Brain Research. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.11.002  (available online)
• Strobel, A., Dreisbach, G., Müller, J., Goschke, T. Brocke, B., & Lesch, K.P. (2007). Genetic variation of serotonin function and cognitive control. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1923-1931
• Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., & Haider H. (2006). Implicit task sets in task switching? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 32, 1221-1233. download
• Dreisbach, G., & Haider, H. (2006). Preparatory adjustment of cognitive control in the task switching paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 334-338. download
• Dreisbach, G. (2006). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: The costs and benefits of reduced maintenance capability. Brain & Cognition, 60, 11-19. download
• Dreisbach, G., Müller, J., Goschke, T., Strobel, A., Schulze, K., Lesch, K. P., & Brocke, B. (2005). Dopamine and Cognitive Control: The influence of spontaneous eye-blink rate and dopamine gene polymorphisms on perseveration and distractibility. Behavioral Neuroscience, 119, 483-490. download
• Dreisbach, G. & Goschke, T.(2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: Reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. 30, 343-353. download
• Hübner, M., Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., & Kluwe, R.H. (2003). Backward Inhibition as a Means of Sequential Task-Set Control: Evidence for Reduction of Task Competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. 29, 289-297. download
• Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., & Kluwe, R.H. (2002). Preparatory Processes in the Task Switching Paradigm: Evidence from the Use of Probability Cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. 28, 468-483. download

• G. Horstmann & G. Dreisbach (2025). Allgemeine Psychologie 2 kompakt. Weinheim: Beltz PVU. 3., vollständig überarbeitete Auflage.
• Goschke, T. & Dreisbach, G. (2011). Kognitiv-affektive Neurowissenschaft: Emotionale Modulation des Denkens, Erinnerns und Handelns. In U. Wittchen & J. Hoyer (Hrsg.), Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie (2. Aufl.) (S. 129- 168). Berlin: Springer.
• Dreisbach, G. (2000). Kognitive Prozesse der Vorbereitung bei wechselnden Aufgabenstellungen. Marburg: Tectum-Verlag. (Thesis)

Professor Dreisbach regularly offers courses on the following topics:

• Introduction to General Psychology II: Part 1 (Learning and Memory)
• Introduction to General Psychology II: Part 2 (Motivation and Emotion)
• Seminar on cognitive processes of cognitive control and self-regulation
• Seminar Motivation and Emotion in Application
• Research seminars for doctoral and students on the MSc Psychological Science programme

A central question in cognitive psychology is how mental representations influence behaviour, particularly when individuals navigate the everyday challenges of managing multiple tasks. Early task-switching research introduced the concept of a "task set" and largely focused on the mechanisms involved in switching tasks (e.g., Allport et al., 1995; Rogers & Monsell, 1995). However, these studies provided limited insights into how tasks are mentally represented and, conversely, how task representations influence task-switching behaviour. Others (e.g., Dreisbach, 2012; Gilbert & Shallice, 2002; Herd et al., 2014; Musslick & Cohen, 2021) have suggested that the way in which tasks are represented critically influences our ability to switch between tasks. Yet relatively little is known about how these representations emerge and how they shape our willingness to change tasks. In this project, we aim to close this gap by combining behavioural experiments with neural network modelling. This project investigates how task representations emerge and how they affect task choice. Additionally, we will examine how task representations, once established, are updated or modified in response to new stimuli that violate the established representation Finally, we will explore how task representations are individually formed based on prior similarity judgments of stimuli. Each behavioural experiment will be complemented by computational simulations of a connectionist model, offering mechanistic accounts of how different patterns of behaviour emerge from varying representations of stimuli and tasks. Taken together this project aims to elucidate the cognitive and computational mechanisms underlying the relationship between task representations and task switching behaviour, providing new insights into how people flexibly adapt to changing task demands and choose between tasks.

PI - Project 1 (behavioural studies): Prof. Dr. Gesine Dreisbach (University of Regensburg)
Ph.D. student: M.Sc. Manuel Pöhlmann (University of Regensburg)

PI - Project 2 (computational modelling): Prof. Dr. Sebastian Musslick (University of Osnabrück) (external link, opens in a new window)
Ph.D. student: N.N. (University of Osnabrück)

The ability to balance cognitive flexibility and stability is crucial for human adaptive behaviour in constantly changing environments. However, there is a lack of consensus on the mechanisms that underlie both faculties. This lack of integration is a significant obstacle to comprehending the regulation of cognitive flexibility and stability in human cognition, such as understanding whether flexibility and stability are regulated independently or whether they need to be traded off against each other via shared mechanisms. Thus, a more mechanistic understanding is needed to advance our current understanding of cognitive flexibility and stability, and, ultimately, to devising effective interventions to enhance both faculties. With this grant proposal, we seek to obtain a more integrative understanding of the mechanisms underlying the regulation of cognitive flexibility and stability. Specifically, we seek to address recent conflicting results that (a) suggest that cognitive flexibility and stability trade off against each other versus (b) that they are regulated independently (Egner, 2023; Mayr & Grätz, 2024). The theoretical account probed in this work is capable of reconcealing these two differing perspectives, suggesting that cognitive flexibility and stability can be both dependent and independent: Cognitive flexibility and stability trade off within a level of information processing (e.g., the processing of task sets) but can be regulated independently across levels of information processing (e.g., the processing of task sets versus the processing of response sets).

PI - Project 1: Prof. Dr. Gesine Dreisbach (University of Regensburg)
Ph.D. student: M.Sc. Andrea Janker (University of Regensburg)

PI - Project 2: Prof. Dr. Sebastian Musslick (University of Osnabrück) (external link, opens in a new window)
Ph.D. student: M.Sc. Alessandra Brondetta (University of Osnabrück) (external link, opens in a new window)

Adaptive control forms the basis of cognitive and behavioral flexibility. It is sensitive to normal aging and its malfunction is closely related to neurological and psychiatric conditions. In general, human beings have the astonishing ability to flexibly adapt action and thought in response to changing requirements from the environment. At the same time, they can be surprisingly stuck in set, for example when they continue using a formerly successful but no longer adaptive processing strategy. Such stuck-in-set phenomena, originally reported in problem solving tasks (Luchins, 1942) are not restricted to neuropsychological abnormalities like perseveration in frontal lobe patients but have recently also been reported for control strategies in context processing- and response conflict-tasks in healthy individuals (e.g., Abrahamse, Duthoo, Notebaert, & Risko, 2013; Hefer & Dreisbach, 2017). In this research project, we intend to investigate two so far highly neglected phenomena that expose a weakness of the much-vaunted cognitive flexibility: (1) The asymmetrical costs when switching between a shielded and a more relaxed mode of control, which show that it can be harder to let go from a shielding control mode and switch to a more relaxed control mode than vice versa.  And (2) the observation that the flexibility to adapt control to different context demands is further limited by the volatility and frequency of context changes. The importance of adaptive control for cognitive and behavioral flexibility highlights the need for understanding the underlying cognitive mechanisms (e.g., the flexible (dis)engagement of different control states), which may offer fertile grounds for subsequent translational research.

PI - Projekt 1: Prof. Dr. Gesine Dreisbach (University of Regensburg)
Ph.D. student: M.Sc. Kathrin Treittinger (University of Regensburg)

PI - Projekt 2: Prof. Dr. Rico Fischer (University of Greifswald) (external link, opens in a new window)
Ph.D. student: M.A. Shu Yang (University of Greifswald) (external link, opens in a new window)

Goal directed behaviour in a constantly changing environment requires a dynamic balance between two antagonistic modes of control: on the one hand, goals need to be maintained and shielded from distraction (stability), and, on the other hand, goals need to be relaxed and flexibly updated whenever significant changes occur (flexibility). To investigate the flexible modulation of task choice, we will use the voluntary task switching paradigm. In the first part of the project, we will investigate the mechanisms underlying the context effect, which describes the observation that humans switch more often voluntarily when they are in a context of frequent forced choices. The second part of the project will be devoted to the question why humans switch more often to a different task when reward prospect increases and why they show more stable behaviour when reward prospect remains unchanged. To answer these questions, we will rely on behavioural measures (task choice, reaction times, error rates, and subjective effort costs), pupillometry (to measure effort and arousal) and electrophysiological correlates of preparatory activity. The overarching goal is to deepen our understanding of how context and motivation impact flexible task choice.

PI: Prof. Dr. Gesine Dreisbach (University of Regensburg)
Contributing: Dr. Kerstin Fröber
Ph.D. student: Dr. Jonathan Mendl (Doctorate 2024)

Executive functions (EFs) enable us to flexibly adjust our thoughts and actions according to rapidly changing constraints to optimise goal attainment. EF rely on a network of brain areas including the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and are heavily involved in complex problem solving, cognitive development, and aging-related cognitive decline. Moreover, most psychopathological problems go along with impairments in EF. Consequently, there has been growing interest in finding ways to improve EF, with special attention given to computerised training. However, the results so far are equivocal. Some reviews have reached optimistic conclusions. Yet, meta-analytic reviews indicate that while there are reliable practice effects (improvement seen in the training task) and relatively modest near transfer effects (improvement in structurally similar tasks), far transfer effects (improvements in structurally dissimilar tasks that presumably tap the trained EF) are predominantly tiny. We argue that the design of most of the current computerized EF training programs is not well grounded in extant theories of PFC neurophysiology. In this research project we will test two related hypotheses concerning why the success of computerized training had so far proven very modest: (1) From PFC physiology, far transfer is not to be expected in the first place unless the abstract task structure that is learned during training is mirrored in the transfer task. (2) How EF-training is currently designed results in negative transfer effects (performance deterioration due to practice) which mask the (already quite small) beneficial transfer effects. These negative transfer effects occur because (a) the application of (instructed task rules) increases shielding and (b) because the repetitive nature of the training (constant repetition of a small number of training tasks) minimises the involvement of EF.

PI - Project 1: Prof. Dr. Gesine Dreisbach (University of Regensburg)
Ph.D. student: Dr. Katrina Sabah (doctorate 2022)

PI - Project 2: Prof. Dr. Nachshon Meiran (Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel) (external link, opens in a new window)
Ph.D. student: N.N. (Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel)

Attending to two (or more) tasks at the same time requires cognitive flexibility and is associated with performance decrements as compared to single task performance. In cognitive psychology, the task switching paradigm has become a popular tool to investigate a specific kind of multitasking performance, namely performing more than one task in a sequential and random order. In this paradigm, task switches afford cognitive flexibility, whereas task repetitions benefit from cognitive stability. This makes the task switching paradigm an ideal tool to investigate the interplay of two antagonistic control modes, namely flexibility and stability. Considering the increasing importance of successful multitasking performance in modern society it is essential to identify ways to differentially motivate flexible and stable behaviour. Recent evidence (Shen & Chun, 2011; Fröber & Dreisbach, in press) suggests that specifically increases in expected reward magnitude increase flexibility whereas the prospect of unchanged high reward increases stability: Predetermined task switches are facilitated and the willingness to deliberately switch the task is increased as compared to unchanged high reward prospect. Aim of the proposed research program is to further investigate how sequential changes in reward prospect differentially influence stability versus flexibility during (voluntary) task switching. In one part of the first funding period, we want to investigate the boundary conditions of the modulation of cognitive flexibility by sequentially changing reward magnitudes. Therefore, we will manipulate global context parameters like the ratio of forced to voluntary task switching, specific instructions given to the participant (on how to choose freely), the absolute vs. relative amount of reward prospect, and varying task difficulties. In the other part, we will focus on the interaction of task expectancies and reward expectancies. Increased cognitive flexibility should facilitate adaptation to unexpected events. Therefore, we want to investigate how sequentially changing reward prospect modulates performance under violations of expectation and increased uncertainty using different procedures of voluntary and forced task switching. The overarching goal of this research programme is to deepen our understanding of how global context parameters and motivation modulate processes of cognitive flexibility. As such, the project contributes to the second cluster of the priority programme ("Flexibility").

PI: Prof. Dr. Gesine Dreisbach (University of Regensburg)
Project staff: Dr. Kerstin Fröber, Dr. Vanessa Jurczyk (doctorate 2021)

Since the mid-1980s, there has been increasing empirical evidence that mild positive affect has qualitative effects on cognitive information processing. According to the dopamine theory of positive affect (Ashby, Isen & Turken, 1999; Ashby, Valentin, & Turken, 2002), the neuropsychological basis is seen in the increased dopaminergic activity associated with positive affect (see also Dreisbach & Goschke, 2004; Dreisbach et al., 2005). Since dopamine is also closely related to the receipt of an unexpected reward (e.g. Schulz, 1997) and reward is typically associated with positive affect, the cognitive psychology literature has often made little or insufficient distinction between positive affect and reward as independent variables (see Chiew & Braver, 2011; Dreisbach & Fischer, 2012). In the proposed project, the differential influences of positive affect on the one hand and (behaviour-dependent and -independent) reward on the other on cognitive control processes are to be investigated comparatively. This research will contribute to the current discussion on the interplay of motivational and emotional influences on cognitive control.

PI: Prof. Dr. Gesine Dreisbach (University of Regensburg)
Project collaborator: Dr. Carmen Flörchinger (née Hefer) (PhD 2021)

The project focusses on the role of affective stimulus properties on processes of sequential conflict modulation, a mechanism described by the conflict monitoring theory of Botvinick et al. (2001). More recent considerations attribute aversive properties to response conflicts. One part of the project will be concerned with providing empirical evidence for this assumption of the affective valence of response conflicts, which has hardly been substantiated to date. Subjectively, a reaction conflict is accompanied by noticeable (and objectively measurable) reaction slowdowns. It is therefore assumed that the aversive character of response conflicts is due to this reduced processing fluency. As the affective valence of processing fluency is well documented (see Oppenheimer, 2008), a further part of the project will investigate the role of perceptual processing fluency (as an affective signal) in sequential conflict regulation. To this end, the perceptual processing fluency (e.g. via the legibility of the stimuli) will be experimentally manipulated independently of the motor processing fluency (by the presence or absence of a response conflict). If it is confirmed that both motor and perceptual processing fluency are used for sequential behaviour control, this would significantly expand the scope of the conflict monitoring theory.

PI: Prof. Dr. Gesine Dreisbach (University of Regensburg)
Project collaborator: Dr. Julia Pastötter (PhD 2016)
Completed doctorate: Dr. Anja Berger (doctorate 2021)

One of the fundamental abilities of human cognition is to pay attention to the task features relevant to a current intention and to block out irrelevant features. At the centre of the investigations is the question of how this focussing of attention is made possible while at the same time shielding against possible disturbing influences from the environment. How does the cognitive system "know" which features are relevant features in the sense of the task and which do not deserve attention? And on what does it depend whether seemingly irrelevant features nevertheless gain access to the task representation? I assume that task sets play a central role in attention control. In preliminary studies on the planned project, it has already been shown that an irrelevant stimulus feature (e.g. the colour of the stimulus shown) has a lasting influence on task processing in a serial reaction time task, but not if the processing of these same stimuli was based on a task set (a categorical decision) (Dreisbach & Haider, 2008, 2009).

PI: Prof. Dr. Gesine Dreisbach (University of Regensburg)
Project collaborators: Dr. Manja Metzker (2007-2009, PhD 2009), Dr. Renate Reisenauer (2010-2013, PhD 2014)

• Psychonomic Society
• Wilhelm Wundt Society e.V.

For research institutions

• German Research Foundation (DFG)
• German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD)
• Israel Science Foundation (ISF)
• National Science Foundation (NSF)

For scientific journals

• Acta Psychologica
• Adaptive Behaviour
• Behavioural Neuroscience
• Biological Psychology
• Brain and Cognition
• Brain Research Bulletin
• Cognition
• Cognition and Emotion
• Cognitive, Affective and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Emotion
• Experimental Psychology
• Experimental Brain Research
• Frontiers in Cognition
• Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
• Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition
• Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
• Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
• Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society
• Memory and Cognition
• Motivation and Emotion
• Nature Human Behaviour
• Neuropsychologia
• PLoS ONE
• Psychologica Belgica
• Psychological Research
• Psychological Science
• Psychological Review
• Psychological Review
• Psychoneuroendocrinology
• Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
• Psychophysiology
• Social Cognition
• Social Psychological and Personality Science
• Social Psychology
• The American Journal of Psychology
• Trends in Cognitive Science
• Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology
• Vision Research

• Associate Editor for Experimental Psychology (2016-2019)
• Series Editor SpringerBriefs in Cognition
• Member of the editorial board (consulting editor):
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition
  • Psychonomic Bulletin and Review
  • Motivation Science