Tasks of a feather flock together: Similarity effects in task switching

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 31, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 781-789

  Arrington, Catherine M ^a,c   Altmann, Erik M ^b   Carr, Thomas H ^b  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Department of Psychology ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; COGNITION; CONTROL SYSTEM; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; TASK SWITCHING; WORKING MEMORY;

EID: 0042161533     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03196116     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. ALLPORT, 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: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421-452). Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.
2. ALLPORT, A., & WYLIE, G. (1999). Task-switching: Positive and negative priming of task-set. In G. W. Humphreys, J. Duncan, & A. [M.] Treisman (Eds.), Attention, space, and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 273-296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. ALLPORT, A., & WYLIE, G. (2000). Task switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 35-70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4. ALTMANN, E. M., & GRAY, W. D. (2002). Forgetting to remember: The functional relationship of decay and interference. Psychological Science, 13, 27-33.
5. ARBUTHNOTT, K. D., & WOODWARD, T. S. (2002). The influence of cue-task association and location on switch cost and alternating-switch cost. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 18-29.
6. ARRINGTON, C. M. (2002). Explorations in task space: Similarity effects on task switching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.
7. FOLK, C. L., REMINGTON, R. W., & JOHNSTON, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 1030-1044.
8. GARNER, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.
9. GOPHER, D. (1996). Attention control: Explorations of the work of an executive controller. Cognitive Brain Research, 5, 23-38.
10. HEUER, H. (1996). Dual-task performance. In O. Neumann & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of perception and action: Vol. 4. Attention (pp. 35-70). London: Academic Press.
11. HÜBNER, R., FUTTERER, T., & STEINHAUSER, M. (2001). On attentional control as a source of residual shift costs: Evidence from two-component task shifts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 640-653.
12. JERSILD, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology (Whole No. 89).
13. KLEINSORGE, T. (2000). Explorations in the structure of task spaces. Psychologica Belgica, 40, 247-257.
14. KLEINSORGE, T., & HEUER, H. (1999). Hierarchical switching in a multi-dimensional task space. Psychological Research, 62, 300-312.
15. KLEINSORGE, T., HEUER, H., & SCHMIDTKE, V. (2001). Task-set reconfiguration with binary and three-valued task dimensions. Psychological Research, 65, 192-201.
16. LOFTUS, G. R., & MASSON, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476-490.
17. LOGAN, G. D. (1985). Executive control of thought and action. Acta Psychologica, 60, 193-210.
18. LOGAN, G. D., & BUNDESEN, C. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 575-599.
19. LOGAN, G. D., & GORDON, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393-434.
20. LOGAN, G. D., & SCHULKIND, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 1072-1090.
21. MAYR, U., & KLIEGL, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 1124-1140.
22. McLEOD, P. (1977). A dual task response modality effect: Support for multiprocessor models of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 651-667.
23. MEDIN, D. L., GOLDSTONE, R. L., & GENTNER, D. (1993). Respects for similarity. Psychological Review, 100, 254-278.
24. MEIRAN, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1423-1442.
25. MEIRAN, N. (2000a). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234-249.
26. MEIRAN, N. (2000b). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 377-399). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. MEIRAN, N., CHOREV, Z., & SAPIR, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211-253.
28. MEIRAN, N., & MARCIANO, H. (2002). Limitations in advance task preparation: Switching the relevant stimulus dimension in speeded same-different comparisons. Memory & Cognition, 30, 540-550.
29. MEUTER, R. F. I., & ALLPORT, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory & Language, 40, 25-40.
30. MONSELL, S., YEUNG, N., & AZUMA, R. (2000). Reconfiguration of task-set: Is it easier to switch to the weaker task? Psychological Research, 63, 250-264.
31. NORMAN, D. A., & SHALLICE, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1-18). New York: Plenum.
32. PASHLER, H. [E.] (1990). Do response modality effects support multiprocessor models of divided attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16, 826-842.
33. PASHLER, H. E. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. PASHLER, H. E. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 278-307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
35. POSNER, M. I., & SNYDER, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solo (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Symposium (pp. 55-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. PSYCHOLOGY SOFTWARE TOOLS, INC. (2000). E-prime (Version 1.0). Pittsburgh, PA: Author.
37. ROGERS, R. D., & MONSELL, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
38. RUBINSTEIN, J. S., MEYER, D. E., & EVANS, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 763-797.
39. SOHN, M.-H., & ANDERSON, J. R. (2001). Task preparation and task repetition: Two-component model of task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 764-778.
40. SOHN, M.-H., & CARLSON, R. A. (2000). Effects of repetition and fore-knowledge in task-set reconfiguration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 1445-1460.
41. SPECTOR, A., & BIEDERMAN, I. (1976). Mental set and shift revisited. American Journal of Psychology, 89, 669-679.
42. SUDEVAN, P., & TAYLOR, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 89-103.
43. TVERSKY, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.