Effects of stimulus features and instruction on response coding, selection, and inhibition: Evidence from repetition effects under task switching

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Volumn 61, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 1573-1600

  Druey, Michel D ^a   Hubner, Ronald ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

Attention; Repetition effects; Response coding; Task switching

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; COLOR VISION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; HEMISPHERIC DOMINANCE; HUMAN; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); LEARNING; MALE; MATHEMATICS; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOLOGICAL REFRACTORY PERIOD; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME;

ADULT; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; ATTENTION; COLOR PERCEPTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL LATERALITY; HUMANS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; MATHEMATICS; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; REFRACTORY PERIOD, PSYCHOLOGICAL; REVERSAL LEARNING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 51349083706     PISSN: 17470218     EISSN: 17470226     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17470210701643397     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Arbuthnott, K. D. (2005). The influence of cue type on backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1030-1042.
2. Bächtold, D., Baumüller, M., & Brugger, P. (1998). Stimulus response compatibility in representational space. Neuropsychologia, 26, 731-735.
3. Botvinick, M., Nystrom, L. E., Fissell, K., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (1999). Conflict monitoring versus selection-for-action in anterior cingulate cortex. Nature, 402, 179-181.
4. Campbell, K. C., & Proctor, R. W. (1993). Repetition effects with categorizable stimulus and response sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1345-1362.
5. Cohen, A., & Shoup, R. (1997). Perceptual dimensional constraints in response selection processes. Cognitive Psychology, 32, 128-181.
6. Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371-396.
7. De Jong, R., Liang, C. C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dualprocess model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731-750.
8. Druey, M. D., & Hübner, R. (in press). The role of temporal cue-target overlap in backward inhibition under task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.
9. Duncan, J. (1979). Divided attention: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 216-228.
10. Ellis, R., & Tucker, M. (2000). Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 451-471.
11. Gevers, W., Reynvoet, B., & Fias, W. (2003). The mental representation of ordinal sequences is spatially organized. Cognition, 87, B87-B95.
12. Gilbert, S. J., & Shallice, T. (2002). Task switching: A PDP model. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 297-337.
13. Hazeltine, E. (2005). Response-response compatibility during bimanual movements: Evidence for the conceptual coding of action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 682-688.
14. Hedge, A., & Marsh, N. W. A. (1975). The effect of irrelevant spatial correspondences on two-choice response-time. Acta Psychologica, 39, 427-439.
15. Heister, G., Schroeder-Heister, P., & Ehrenstein, W. H. (1990). Spatial coding and spatio-anatomical mapping: Evidence for a hierarchical model of spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 117-143). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
16. Heuer, H. (1993). Structural constraints on bimanual movements. Psychological Research, 55, 83-98.
17. Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55, 270-279.
18. Hommel, B. (1997). Toward an action-concept model of stimulus-response compatibility. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 281-320). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
19. Hommel, B. (1998a). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368-1384.
20. Hommel, B. (1998b). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183-216.
21. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849-937.
22. Houghton, G., & Tipper, S. P. (1994). A model of inhibitory mechanisms in selective attention. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 53-112). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23. Hübner, R., & Druey, M. D. (2006). Response execution, selection, or activation: What is sufficient for response-related repetition effects under task shifting? Psychological Research, 70, 245-261.
24. Hübner, R., & Druey, M. D. (in press). Multiple response codes play specific roles in response selection and inhibition under task shifting. Psychological Research.
25. Kleinsorge, T. (1999). Response repetition benefits and costs. Acta Psychologica, 103, 295-310.
26. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility - a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253-270.
27. Kornblum, S., & Lee, J. W. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 855-875.
28. Kunde, W. (2001). Response-effect compatibility in manual choice reaction tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 387-394.
29. Lamberts, K. (2000). Information-accumulation theory of speeded categorization. Psychological Review, 107, 227-260.
30. Lien, M. C., & Proctor, R. W. (2000). Multiple spatial correspondence effects on dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1260-1280.
31. Lien, M. C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus-response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 212-238.
32. 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 and Performance, 29, 692-712.
33. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492-527.
34. Logan, G. D. (2002). An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychological Review, 109, 376-400.
35. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393-434.
36. Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2006). Priming or executive control? Associative priming of cue encoding increases "switch costs" in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Memory & Cognition, 34, 1250-1259.
37. Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations: I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1072-1090.
38. Lu, C. H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174-207.
39. 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.
40. Meiran, N. (2000a). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234-249.
41. Meiran, N. (2000b). 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.
42. Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211-253.
43. Müsseler, J., Wühr, P., & Prinz, W. (2000). Varying the response code in the blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Visual Cognition, 7, 743-767.
44. Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J. (1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychological Review, 104, 266-300.
45. Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991). Procedural learning: 2. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 33-48.
46. Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 41, 19-45.
47. Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129-154.
48. Proctor, R. W., Wang, D.-Y. D., & Pick, D. F. (2004). Stimulus-response compatibility with wheel-rotation responses: Will an incompatible response coding be used when a compatible coding is possible? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 841-847.
49. Ridderinkhof, K. R. (1997). A dual-route processing architecture for stimulus-response correspondence effects. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 119-131). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
50. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
51. 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.
52. Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2004). The costs of changing the representation of action: Response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 566-582.
53. Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174-176.
54. Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2006). Response-based strengthening in task shifting: Evidence from shift effects produced by errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 517-534.
55. Stins, J. F., & Michaels, C. F. (1997). Stimulus-response compatibility is information-action compatibility. Ecological Psychology, 9, 25-45.
56. Treisman, A. (1998). Feature binding, attention and object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 353, 1295-1306.
57. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cognition, 8, 769-800.
58. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2004). Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychologica, 116, 185-203.
59. Wallace, R. J. (1971). S-R compatibility and the idea of a response code. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 88, 354-360.
60. 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.
61. Watter, S., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Parallel response selection in dual-task situations. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 254-277.
62. Wenke, D., & Frensch, P. A. (2005). The influence of task instruction on action coding: Constraint setting or direct coding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 803-819.
63. Willingham, D. B. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 105, 558-584.
64. Zhang, H. H., Zhang, J., & Kornblum, S. (1999). A parallel distributed processing model of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response compatibility. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 386-432.