Modeling cognitive control in task-switching

Psychological Research

Volumn 63, Issue 3-4, 2000, Pages 234-249

  Meiran, Nachshon ^a  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COGNITION; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

ADULT; ATTENTION; COGNITION; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

EID: 0033655957     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s004269900004     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà, & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance, XV (pp. 421-452). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Allport, D. A., & Wylie, Q. (in press). Task-switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In: S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: attention and performance XVIII. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. Chorev, Z., & Meiran, N. (1998). Phasic arousal affects the residual task switching cost. Poster presented at the X Congress of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Jerusalem, Israel.
4. De Jong, R. (1995). Strategical determinants of compatibility effects with task uncertainty. Acta Psychologica, 88, 187-207.
5. De Jong, R. (1997). Compatibility effects on performance and executive control in dynamic task settings. In B. Hommel, & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 223-240). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
6. De Jong, R. (in press). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: attention and performance XVIII. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Duncan, J. (1977). Response selection rules in spatial choice reaction tasks In: S. Dornik (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 49-61). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Fagot, C. (1994). Chronometric investigations of task switching. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, San-Diego.
9. Goschke, T. (in press). Decomposing the central executive: Persistence, deactivation, and reconfiguration of voluntary task set. In S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive p ocesses: attention and performance XVII. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Hartley, A. A., Kieley, J. M., & Slabach, E. H. (1990). Age differences and similarities in the effects of cues and prompts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 523-537.
11. Hommel, B. (1997). Toward an action-concept model of stimulus-response compatibility. In B. Hommel, & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 281-320). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
12. Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 89.
13. Los, S. A. (in press-a). Identifying stimuli of different perceptual categories in mixed blocks of trials: evidence for cost in switching between computational processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.
14. Los, S. A. (in press-b). Identifying stimuli of different perceptual categories in mixed blocks of trials: evidence for stimulus driven switch costs. Acta Psychologica.
15. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
16. Marcel, T., & Forrin, B. (1974). Naming latency and the repetition of stimulus categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10, 450-460.
17. Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (in press). Changing internal constraints on action: the role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.
18. Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423-1442.
19. Meiran, N. (in press). Reconfiguration of stimulus task-sets and response task-sets during task-switching. In: S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: attention and performance XVIII. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20. Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (in press) Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology.
21. Monsell, S., Azuma, R., Eimer, M., Le Pelley, M., & Strafford, S. (1998). Does a prepared task switch require an extra (control) process between stimulus onset and response selection? Poster presented at the 18th International Symposium on Attention and Performance, The Great Park, Windsor, England.
22. Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 226-254.
23. Niemi, P., & Naatanen, R. (1981). Foreperiod and simple reaction time. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 133-162.
24. Posner, M. L., & Boies, S. J. (1971). Components of attention. Psychological Review, 78, 391-408.
25. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 4, 1-20.
26. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). The cost of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
27. Shaffer, L. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 284-288.
28. Sternberg, S. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: extensions of Donder's method. Acta Psychologica, 30, 276-315.
29. Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cueing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 89-103.
30. Ward, L. M. (1982). Determinants of attention to local and global features of visual forms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 562-581.