Task switching is not cue switching

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 13, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 1016-1022

  Altmann, Erik M ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248223602     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03213918     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. ALTMANN, E. M. (2002). Functional decay of memory for tasks. Psychological Research, 66, 287-297.
2. ALTMANN, E. M. (2004a). Advance preparation in task switching: What work is being done? Psychological Science, 15, 616-622.
3. ALTMANN, E. M. (2004b). The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA. Memory & Cognition, 32, 153-163.
4. ARRINGTON, C. M., & LOGAN, G. D. (2004). Episodic and semantic components of the compound-stimulus strategy in the explicit taskcuing procedure. Memory & Cognition, 32, 965-978.
5. 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.
6. KLEINSORGE, T. (1999). Response repetition benefits and costs. Acta Psychologica, 103, 295-310.
7. KOCH, I. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 1474-1486.
8. LOGAN, G. D. (2003). Executive control of thought and action: In search of the wild homunculus. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 45-48.
9. 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.
10. LOGAN, G. D., & BUNDESEN, C. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 832-840.
11. MAYR, U. (2002). Inhibition of action rules. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 93-99.
12. MAYR, U. (2006). What matters in the cued task-switching paradigm: Tasks or cues? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 794-799.
13. MAYR, U., & KLIEGL, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 362-372.
14. 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.
15. MONSELL, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134-140.
16. MONSELL, S., & DRIVER, J. (2000). Banishing the control homunculus. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 3-32). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17. MONSELL, S., & MIZON, G. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 32, 493-516.
18. POLJAC, E., DE HAAN, A., & VAN GALEN, G. P. (2006). Current task activation predicts general effects of advance preparation in task switching. Experimental Psychology, 53, 260-267.
19. 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.