Short cue presentations encourage advance task preparation: A recipe to diminish the residual switch cost

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 342-356

  Verbruggen, Frederick ^a   Liefooghe, Baptist ^a   Vandierendonck, André ^a   Demanet, Jelle ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Advance preparation; Executive control; Residual switch cost; Short cue presentations; Task switching

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; AWARENESS; COLOR VISION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; AWARENESS; COLOR PERCEPTION; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; SET (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 33947543929     PISSN: 02787393     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.342     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. L. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and unconscious information processing (pp. 421-452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. 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.
3. Altmann, E. M. (2004). Advance preparation in task switching: What work is being done? Psychological Science, 15, 616-622.
4. Altmann, E. M. (2005). Repetition priming in task switching: Do the benefits dissipate? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 535-540.
5. Altmann, E. M. (in press). Task switching is not cue switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
6. Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2004). Episodic and semantic components of the compound-stimulus strategy in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Memory & Cognition, 32, 965-978.
7. Baddeley, A. (1996). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology, 49, 5-28.
8. Brown, S., Lehmann, C., & Poboka, D. (2006). A critical test of the failure-to-engage theory of task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 152-159.
9. De Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 357-376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. De Jong, R., Berendsen, E., & Cools, R. (1999). Goal neglect and inhibitory limitations: Dissociable causes of interference effects in conflict situations. Acta Psychologica, 101, 379-394.
11. Forstmann, B. U., Brass, M., & Koch, I. (in press). Methodological and empirical issues when dissociating cue-related from task-related processes in the explicit task cuing paradigm. Psychological Research: Psychologische Forschung.
12. Gopher, D. (1996). Attention control: Explorations of the work of an executive controller. Cognitive Brain Research, 5, 23-38.
13. Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task-set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 331-355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14. Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift [Special issue]. Archives of Psychology, 89.
15. Koch, I. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1474-1486.
16. Liefooghe, B., Vandierendonck, A., Muyllaert, I., Verbruggen, F., & Vanneste, W. (2005). The phonological loop in task alternation and task repetition. Memory, 13, 550-560.
17. Lien, M. C., Ruthruff, E., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (2005). On the limits of advance preparation for a task switch: Do people prepare all the task some of the time or some of the task all the time? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 299-315.
18. Logan, G. D. (1985). Executive control of thought and action. Acta Psychologica, 60, 193-210.
19. Logan, G. D. (2003). Executive control of thought and action: In search of the wild homunculus. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 45-48.
20. 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 and Performance, 29, 575-599.
21. Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 832-840.
22. Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2006). Interpreting instructional cues in task switching procedures: The role of mediator retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 347-363.
23. Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (in press). Priming or executive control? Associative priming of cue encoding increases "switch costs" in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Memory & Cognition.
24. Mayr, U. (2001). Age differences in the selection of mental sets: The role of inhibition, stimulus ambiguity, and response-set overlap. Psychology and Aging, 16, 96-109.
25. Mayr, U. (in press). What matters in the cued task-switching paradigm: Cues or tasks? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
26. Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4-26.
27. Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1124-1140.
28. Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 362-372.
29. Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423-1442.
30. Meiran, N. (2000). 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.
31. Meiran, N., & Chorev, Z. (2005). Phasic alertness and the residual taskswitching cost. Experimental Psychology, 52, 109-124.
32. Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211-253.
33. Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex "frontal lobe" tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49-100.
34. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134-140.
35. Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an "endogenous" task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 493-516.
36. Monsell, S., Yeung, N., & Azuma, R. (2000). Reconfiguration of task-set: Is it easier to switch to the weaker task? Psychological Research: Psychologische Forschung, 63, 250-264.
37. Nieuwenhuis, S., & Monsell, S. (2002). Residual costs in task switching: Testing the failure-to-engage hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 86-92.
38. 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 (pp. 1-18). New York: Plenum.
39. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
40. Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763-797.
41. Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Modeling task switching without switching tasks: A short-term priming account of explicitly cued performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 343-367.
42. Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Priming cue encoding by manipulating transition frequency in explicitly cued task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 145-151.
43. Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (in press). Defining task-set reconfiguration: The case of reference point switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
44. Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 92-105.
45. Spector, A., & Biederman, I. (1976). Mental set and mental shift revisited. American Journal of Psychology, 89, 669-679.
46. Stevens, M., Lammertyn, J., Verbruggen, F., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Tscope: A C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS Windows platform. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 280-286.
47. Teuber, H.-L. (1972). Unity and diversity of frontal lobe functions. Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis, 32, 615-656.
48. Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and longterm priming: Role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 361-413.
49. Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2004). Semantic generalization of stimulus-task bindings. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1027-1033.
50. Wylie, G. R., & Allport, A. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of "switch costs." Psychological Research: Psychologische Forschung, 63, 212-233.
51. Wylie, G. R., Javitt, D. C., & Foxe, J. J. (2004). The role of response requirements in task switching: Dissolving the residue. NeuroReport, 15, 1079-1087.