Verbal representation in task order control: An examination with transition and task cues in random task switching

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 37, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 1040-1050

  Saeki, Erina ^a   Saito, Satoru ^a  

^a KYOTO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; DECISION MAKING; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; REACTION TIME; SPEECH ARTICULATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VERBALIZATION;

ATTENTION; CUES; HUMANS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); JUDGMENT; MENTAL RECALL; MOTOR ACTIVITY; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; READING; REVERSAL LEARNING; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 70349747020     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/MC.37.7.1040     Document Type: Article

References (26)

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, Bradford Books.
2. BADDELEY, A. D., CHINCOTTA, D., & ADLAM, A. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: Evidence from task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 641-657.
3. BRYCK, R. L., & MAYR, U. (2005). On the role of verbalization during task set selection: Switching or serial order control? Memory & Cognition, 33, 611-623.
4. DOMINEY, P. F., HOEN, M., BLANC, J. M., & LELEKOV-BOISSARD, T. (2003). Neurological basis of language and sequential cognition: Evidence from simulation, aphasia, and ERP studies. Brain & Language, 86, 207-225.
5. EMERSON, M. J., & MIYAKE, A. (2003). The role of inner speech in task switching: A dual-task investigation. Journal of Memory & Language, 48, 148-168.
6. FORSTMANN, B. U., BRASS, M., & KOCH, I. (2007). Methodological and empirical issues when dissociating cue-related from task-related processes in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Psychological Research, 71, 393-400.
7. FORSTMANN, B. U., BRASS, M., KOCH, I., & VON CRAMON, D. Y. (2005). Internally generated and directly cued task sets: An investigation with fMRI. Neuropsychologia, 43, 943-952.
8. 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.
9. JERSILD, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology (Whole No. 89).
10. KOCH, I., PRINZ, W., & ALLPORT, A. (2005). Involuntary retrieval in alphabet-arithmetic tasks: Task-mixing and task-switching costs. Psychological Research, 69, 252-261.
11. KRAY, J., & LINDENBERGER, U. (2000). Adult age differences in task switching. Psychology & Aging, 15, 126-147. (Pubitemid 30756987)
12. LOGAN, G. D., & BUNDESEN, C. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 832-840.
13. 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.
14. LOS, S. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials. Acta Psychologica, 94, 145-188.
15. MAYR, U. (2003). Towards principles of executive control: How mental sets are selected. In R. H. Kluwe, G. Luer, & F. Rosler (Eds.), Principles of learning and memory (pp. 223-240). Basel: Birkhäuser.
16. MEIRAN, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1423-1442. (Pubitemid 126149596)
17. MEIRAN, N., CHOREV, Z., & SAPIR, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211-253.
18. MIYAKE, A., EMERSON, M. J., PADILLA, F., & AHN, J.-C. (2004). Inner speech as a retrieval aid for task goals: The effects of cue type and articulatory suppression in the random task cuing paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 115, 123-142.
19. MONSELL, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134-140.
20. ROGERS, R. D., & MONSELL, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
21. RUBIN, O., & MEIRAN, N. (2005). On the origins of the task mixing cost in the cuing task-switching paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1477-1491. (Pubitemid 43083741)
22. RUSHWORTH, M. F. S., HADLAND, K. A., PAUS, T., & SIPILA, P. K. (2002). Role of the human medial frontal cortex in task switching: A combined fMRI and TMS study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 87, 2577-2592.
23. SAEKI, E., & SAITO, S. (2004a). Effect of articulatory suppression on task-switching performance: Implications for models of working memory. Memory, 12, 257-271. (Pubitemid 38594163)
24. SAEKI, E., & SAITO, S. (2004b). The role of the phonological loop in task switching performance: The effect of articulatory suppression in the alternating runs paradigm. Psychologia, 47, 35-43.
25. SAEKI, E., SAITO, S., & KAWAGUCHI, J. (2006). Effect of response-stimulus interval manipulation and articulatory suppression on task switching. Memory, 14, 965-976.
26. SCHNEIDER, D. W., & LOGAN, G. D. (2007). Task switching versus cue switching: Using transition cuing to disentangle sequential effects in task-switching performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 370-378.