Is task switching nothing but cue priming? Evidence from ERPs

Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 74-84

  Jost, Kerstin ^a   Mayr, Ulrich ^b   Rösler, Frank ^a  

^a PHILIPPS UNIVERSITY MARBURG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISSOCIATION; EVENT RELATED POTENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; RESPONSE TIME; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; ATTENTION; BRAIN CORTEX; EVOKED RESPONSE; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; REFERENCE VALUE;

ADULT; ATTENTION; CEREBRAL CORTEX; CUES; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); EVOKED POTENTIALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; REFERENCE VALUES;

EID: 43549105404     PISSN: 15307026     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/CABN.8.1.74     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. BARCELÓ, F., ESCERA, C., CORRAL, M. J., & PERIÁÑEZ, J. A. (2006). Task switching and novelty processing activate a common neural network for cognitive control. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1734-1748.
2. Barceló, F., Periáñez, J. A., & Knight, R. T. (2002). Think differently: A brain orienting response to task novelty. NeuroReport, 13, 1887-1892.
3. BRASS, M., ULLSPERGER, M., KNOESCHE, T. R., VON CRAMON, D. Y., & PHILLIPS, N. A. (2005). Who comes first? The role of the prefrontal and parietal cortex in cognitive control. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1367-1375.
4. BRYCK, R. L., GORDON, K. B. C., & MAYR, U. (2004, November). Neuroanatomical correlates of cue switching versus task switching. Poster presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Minneapolis.
5. DE JONG, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 357-376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
6. DONCHIN, E. (1981). Surprise! . . . Surprise? Psychophysiology, 18, 493-513.
7. DONCHIN, E., & COLES, M. G. (1988). Is the P300 component a manifestation of context updating? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 11, 357-427.
8. GEHRING, W. J., BRYCK, R. L., JONIDES, J., ALBIN, R. L., & BADRE, D. (2003). The mind's eye, looking inward? In search of executive control in internal attention shifting. Psychophysiology, 40, 572-585.
9. HENNIGHAUSEN, E., HEIL, M., & RÖSLER, F. (1993). A correction method for DC drift artifacts. Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology, 86, 199-204.
10. HSIEH, S., & CHEN, P. (2006). Task reconfiguration and carryover in task switching: An event-related potential study. Brain Research, 1084, 132-145.
11. HUYNH, H., & FELDT, L. S. (1976). Estimation of the Box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomized block and splitplot designs. Journal of Educational Statistics, 1, 69-82.
12. JASPER, H. (1958). The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology, 10, 371-375.
13. KARAYANIDIS, F., COLTHEART, M., MICHIE, P. T., & MURPHY, K. (2003). Electrophysiological correlates of anticipatory and poststimulus components of task switching. Psychophysiology, 40, 329-348.
14. KRAY, J., EPPINGER, B., & MECKLINGER, A. (2005). Age differences in attentional control: An event-related potential approach. Psychophysiology, 42, 407-416.
15. 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.
16. LOGAN, G. D., & BUNDESEN, C. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 832-840.
17. MAYR, U. (2006). What matters in the cued task-switching paradigm: Tasks or cues? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 794-799.
18. MAYR, U., & KLIEGL, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 1124-1140.
19. 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.
20. MCCARTHY, G., & WOOD, C. C. (1985). Scalp distributions of event-related potentials: An ambiguity associated with analysis of variance models. Electroencephalography & Clinical Neurophysiology, 62, 203-208.
21. MEIRAN, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1423-1442.
22. MINIUSSI, C., MARZI, C. A., & NOBRE, A. C. (2005). Modulation of brain activity by selective task sets observed using event-related potentials. Neuropsychologia, 43, 1514-1528.
23. MONSELL, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134-140.
24. 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.
25. NICHOLSON, R., KARAYANIDIS, F., BUMAK, E., POBOKA, D., & MICHIE, P. T. (2006). ERPs dissociate the effects of switching task sets and task cues. Brain Research, 1095, 107-123.
26. NICHOLSON, R., KARAYANIDIS, F., POBOKA, D., HEATHCOTE, A., & MICHIE, P. T. (2005). Electrophysiological correlates of anticipatory task-switching processes. Psychophysiology, 42, 540-554.
27. ROGERS, R. D., & MONSELL, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
28. RUSHWORTH, M. F. S., PASSINGHAM, R. E., & NOBRE, A. C. (2002). Components of switching intentional set. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1139-1150.
29. RUSHWORTH, M. F. S., PASSINGHAM, R. E., & NOBRE, A. C. (2005). Components of attentional set-switching. Experimental Psychology, 52, 83-98.
30. 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.