The representational locus of spatial influence on backward inhibition

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 522-528

  Arbuthnott, Katherine D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF REGINA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; APPARATUS; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ERROR; FEMALE; HUMAN; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; SPATIAL ORIENTATION; STIMULUS; TASK PERFORMANCE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTENTION; CONFLICT (PSYCHOLOGY); CUES; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; HUMANS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); JUDGMENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORIENTATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; REACTION TIME; REVERSAL LEARNING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 67649619607     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/MC.37.4.522     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. ALLPORT, A., STYLES, E. A., & HSIEH, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421-452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. ALTMANN, E. M. (2007). Cue-independent task-specific representations in task switching: Evidence from backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 892-899.
3. ARBUTHNOTT, K. D. (2005). The influence of cue type on backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1030-1042. (Pubitemid 41677506)
4. ARBUTHNOTT, K. D. (2008a). Asymmetric switch cost and backward inhibition: Carryover activation and inhibition in switching between tasks of unequal difficulty. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 91-100.
5. ARBUTHNOTT, K. [D.] (2008b). The effect of task location and task type on backward inhibition. Memory & Cognition, 36, 534-543. (Pubitemid 351928496)
6. ARBUTHNOTT, K. [D.], & FRANK, J. (2000). Executive control in set switching: Residual switch cost and task-set inhibition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 33-41.
7. ARBUTHNOTT, K. D., & WOODWARD, T. S. (2002). The influence of cue-task association and location on switch cost and alternating-switch cost. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 18-29.
8. DRUEY, M. D., & HÜBNER, R. (2007). The role of temporal cue-target overlap in backward inhibition under task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 749-754.
9. GADE, M., & KOCH, I. (2005). Linking inhibition to activation in the control of task sequences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 530-534. (Pubitemid 41382759)
10. GADE, M., & KOCH, I. (2007). The influence of overlapping response sets on task inhibition. Memory & Cognition, 35, 603-609. (Pubitemid 47257799)
11. GADE, M., & KOCH, I. (2008). Dissociating cue-related and task-related processes in task inhibition: Evidence from using a 2:1 cue-to-task mapping. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 51-55.
12. 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. 331-355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. GRANGE, J. A., & HOUGHTON, G. (in press). Temporal cue-target overlap is not essential for backward inhibition in task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
14. 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. (Pubitemid 38413923)
15. LOFTUS, G. R., & MASSON, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476-490.
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. (Pubitemid 41350579)
17. LOGAN, G. D., & SCHNEIDER, D. W. (2006). Interpreting instructional cues in task switching procedures: The role of mediator retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 32, 347-363.
18. 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.
19. MAYR, U., & BRYCK, R. L. (2007). Outsourcing control to the environment: Effects of stimulus/response locations on task selection. Psychological Research, 71, 107-116.
20. MAYR, U., DIEDRICHSEN, J., IVRY, R., & KEELE, S. W. (2006). Dissociating task-set selection from task-set inhibition in the prefrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 14-21.
21. MAYR, U., & KEELE, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4-26.
22. 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. (Pubitemid 38156911)
23. MONSELL, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134-140. (Pubitemid 36294174)
24. ROGERS, R. D., & MONSELL, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
25. 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. (Pubitemid 38360916)