Proactive versus reactive task-set inhibition: Evidence from flanker compatibility effects

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 14, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 977-983

  Kuhns, David ^a   Lien, Mei Ching ^a   Ruthruff, Eric ^b  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 37349048348     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03194131     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. ALLPORT, A., STYLES, E. A., & HSIEH, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà and M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421-452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. ARBUTHNOTT, K. D. (2005). The influence of cue type on backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1030-1042.
3. 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.
4. GADE, M., & KOCH, I. (2005). Linking inhibition to activation in the control of task sequences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 530-534.
5. GOSCHKE, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention andperformance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 331-355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. HÜBNER, R., 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.
7. LIEN, M.-C., RUTHRUFF, E., & KUHNS, D. (2006). On the difficulty of task switching: Assessing the role of task-set inhibition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 530-535.
8. 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 & Performance, 31, 299-315.
9. LIEN, M.-C., SCHWEICKERT, R., & PROCTOR, R. W. (2003). Task-switching and response correspondence in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 692-712.
10. MAYR, U., & KEELE, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4-26.
11. MEIRAN, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1423-1442.
12. PHILIPP, A. M., & KOCH, I. (2006). Task inhibition and task repetition in task switching. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 624-639.
13. ROGERS, R. D., & MONSELL, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
14. RUTHRUFF, E., REMINGTON, R. W., & JOHNSTON, J. C. (2001). Switching between simple cognitive tasks: The interaction of top-down and bottom-up factors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 1404-1419.
15. SCHUCH, S., & KOCH, I. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 92-105.