Probe-specific proportion task repetition effects on switching costs

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 70, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 935-945

  Leboe, Jason P ^a   Wong, Jady ^a   Crump, Matt ^b   Stobbe, Kailyn ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; LEARNING; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

HUMANS; PRACTICE (PSYCHOLOGY); PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

EID: 50249094438     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PP.70.6.935     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. AZLLPORT, D. A., STYLES, E. A., & HSIEH, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and non-conscious information processing (pp. 421-452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. ALLPORT, [D.] A., & WYLIE, G. (2000). Task switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 35-70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3. ARBUTHNOTT, K. D., & WOODWARD, T. S. (2002). The influence of cuetask association and location on switch cost and alternating-switch cost. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 18-29.
4. 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.
5. BODNER, G. E., & MASSON, M. E. J. (1997). Masked repetition priming of words and nonwords: Evidence for a nonlexical basis for priming. Journal of Memory & Language, 37, 268-293.
6. BODNER, G. E., & MASSON, M. E. J. (2001). Prime validity affects masked repetition priming: Evidence for an episodic resource account of priming. Journal of Memory & Language, 45, 616-647.
7. CORBALLIS, P. M., & GRATTON, G. (2003). Independent control of processing strategies for different locations in the visual field. Biological Psychology, 64, 191-209.
8. CRUMP, M. J. C., GONG, Z., & MILLIKEN, B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 316-321.
9. CRUMP, M. J. C., VAQUERO, J. M. M., & MILLIKEN, B. (2008). Context-specific learning and control: The roles of awareness, task relevance, and relative salience. Consciousness & Cognition, 17, 22-36.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. DISHON-BERKOVITS, M., & ALGOM, D. (2000). The Stroop effect: It is not the robust phenomenon that you have thought it to be. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1437-1449.
13. DREISBACH, G., & HAIDER, H. (2006). Preparatory adjustment of cognitive control in the task switching paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 334-338.
14. 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.
15. GOSCHKE, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task-set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 331-356). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. GRILL-SPECTOR, K. (2003). The neural basis of object perception. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13, 159-166.
17. HOMMEL, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183-216.
18. HOMMEL, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494-500.
19. HOMMEL, B., MÜSSELER, J., ASCHERSLEBEN, G., & PRINZ, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 849-878.
20. HÜBNER, M., 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.
21. JACOBY, L. L., LINDSAY, D. S., & HESSELS, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 638-644.
22. JACOBY, L. L., MCELREE, B., & TRAINHAM, T. N. (1999). Automatic influences as accessibility bias in memory and Stroop tasks: Toward a formal model. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance. Interaction of theory and application (pp. 461-486). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. JERSILD, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 14 (Whole No. 89).
24. JOHNSTON, J. C., & PASHLER, H. (1990). Close binding of identity and location in visual feature perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16, 843-856.
25. JOORDENS, S., & BECKER, S. (1997). The long and short of semantic priming effects in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory, & Cognition, 23, 1083-1105.
26. KOCH, I. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 1474-1486.
27. LEBOE, J. P., & MILLIKEN, B. (2004). Single-prime negative pruning in the shape-matching task: Implications for the role of perceptual segmentation processes. Visual Cognition, 11, 603-630.
28. LEBOE, J. P., MONDOR, T. A., & LEBOE, L. C. (2006). Feature mismatch effects in auditory negative priming: Interference as dependent on salient aspects of prior episodes. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 897-910.
29. LEBOE, J. P., WHITTLESEA, B. W. A., & MILLIKEN, B. (2005). Selective and nonselective transfer: Positive and negative priming in a multiple-task environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1001-1029.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. LOGAN, G. D., & BUNDESEN, C. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 832-840.
33. LOGAN, G. D., & ZBRODOFF, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 166-174.
34. LOGAN, G. D., ZBRODOFF, N. J., & WILLIAMSON, J. (1984). Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 135-138.
35. LOWE, D. G., & MITTERER, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 684-700.
36. MACLEOD, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163-203.
37. MASSON, M. E. J., & BODNER, G. E. (2003). A retrospective view of masked priming: Toward a unified account of masked and long-term repetition priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 57-94). New York: Psychology Press.
38. MAYR, U. (2002). Inhibition of action rules. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 93-99.
39. MAYR, U. (2006). What matters in the cued task-switching paradigm: Tasks or cues? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 794-799.
40. MAYR, U., & BRYCK, R. L. (2007). Outsourcing control to the environment: Effects of stimulus/response locations on task selection. Psychological Research, 71, 107-116.
41. MAYR, U., & KEELE, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4-26.
42. 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.
43. MEIRAN, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1423-1442.
44. MEIRAN, N., & CHOREV, Z. (2005). Phasic alertness and the residual task-switching cost. Experimental Psychology, 52, 109-124.
45. MEIRAN, N., CHOREV, Z., & SAPIR, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211-253.
46. MEUTER, R. F. I., & ALLPORT, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching and naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory & Language, 40, 25-40.
47. MILLIKEN, B., JOORDENS, S., MERIKLE, P. M., & SEIFFERT, A. E. (1998). Selective attention: A reevaluation of the implications of negative priming. Psychological Review, 105, 203-229.
48. MONSELL, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134-140.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. MORRIS, C. D., BRANSFORD, J. D., & FRANKS, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer-appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 519-533
52. NEILL, W. T. (1997). Episodic retrieval in negative priming and repetition priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 1291-1305.
53. NEILL, W. T., & MATHIS, K. M. (1998). Transfer-inappropriate processing: Negative priming and related phenomena. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 38, pp. 1-44). San Diego: Academic Press.
54. NIEUWENHUIS, S., & MONSELL, S. (2002). Residual costs in task switching: Testing the failure-to-engage hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 86-92.
55. PHILIPP, A., & KOCH, I. (2006). Task inhibition and task repetition in task switching. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 624-639.
56. RATCLIFF, R., & MCKDON, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychological Review, 95, 385-408.
57. ROGERS, R. D., & MONSELL, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
58. ROTHERMUND, K., WENTURA, D., & DE HOUWER, J. (2005). Retrieval of incidental stimulus-response associations as a source of negative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 482-495.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. SPECTOR, A., & BIEDERMAN, I. (1976). Mental set and mental shift revisited. American Journal of Psychology, 89, 669-679.
62. STROOP, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662.
63. TENPENNY, P. L. (1995). Abstractionist versus episodic theories of repetition priming and word identification. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 339-363.
64. TREISMAN, A. M., & GELADE, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
65. TULVING, E., & THOMSON, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352-373.
66. TZELGOV, J., HENIK, A., & BERGER, J. (1992). Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words. Memory & Cognition, 20, 727-735.
67. VERBRUGGEN, F., LIEFOOGHE, B., VANDIERENDONCK, A., & DEMANET, J. (2007). Short cue presentations encourage advance task preparation: A recipe to diminish the residual switch cost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 342-356.
68. WASZAK, F., HOMMEL, B., & ALLPORT, A, (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 361-413.
69. WASZAK, F., HOMMEL, B., & ALLPORT, A. (2004). Semantic generalization of stimulus-task bindings. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1027-1033.
70. WASZAK, F., HOMMEL, B., & ALLPORT, A. (2005). Interaction of task readiness and automatic retrieval in task switching: Negative priming and competitor priming. Memory & Cognition, 33, 595-610.
71. WEST, R., & BAYLIS, G. C. (1998). Effects of increased response dominance and contextual disintegration on the Stroop interference effect in older adults. Psychology & Aging, 13, 206-217.
72. WHITTLESEA, B. W. A., & JACOBY, L. L. (1990). Interaction of prime repetition with visual degradation: Is priming a retrieval phenomenon? Journal of Memory & Language, 29, 546-565.
73. WONG, J., & LEBOE, J. P. (in press). Distinguishing between inhibitory and episodic accounts of switch-cost asymmetries. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology.
74. WYLIE, G., & ALLPORT, A. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of "switch costs." Psychological Research, 63, 212-233.
75. YEUNG, N., & MONSELL, S. (2003). The effects of recent practice on task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 919-936.