The role of preparation and cue-modality in crossmodal task switching

Acta Psychologica

Volumn 134, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 318-322

  Lukas, Sarah ^a   Philipp, Andrea M ^a   Koch, Iring ^a  

^a RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Advance preparation; Crossmodal selective attention; Stimulus modality switch costs

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; ATTENTION; AUDITORY STIMULATION; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; MALE; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; VISION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ATTENTION; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; CUES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REACTION TIME; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 77953685405     PISSN: 00016918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.03.004     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Allport D.A., Styles E.A., Hsieh S. Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing 1994, 421-452. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. C. Umiltà, M. Moscovitch (Eds.).
2. Altmann E.M. The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA. Memory & Cognition 2004, 32:153-163.
3. Arbuthnott K., Frank J. Executive control in set switching: Residual switch cost and task-set inhibition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 2000, 54:33-41.
4. Gade M., Koch I. Cue-task associations in task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2007, 60:762-769.
5. Hübner M., Kluwe R.H., Luna-Rodriguez A., Peters A. Task preparation and stimulus-evoked competition. Acta Psychologica 2004, 115:211-234.
6. Koch I. The role of external cues for endogenous advance reconfiguration in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2003, 10:488-492.
7. Koch I., Allport A. Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching. Memory & Cognition 2006, 34:433-444.
8. Koch I., Gade M., Schuch S., Philipp A.M. The role of inhibition in task switching - A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 2010, 17:1-14.
9. Lien M., Ruthruff E., Remington R.W., Johnston J.C. On the limits of advance preparation for a task switch: Do people prepare all the task some of the time of some of the task all the time?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2005, 31:299-315.
10. Logan G.D., Bundesen C. Clever Homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2003, 29:575-599.
11. Lukas S., Philipp A.M., Koch I. Switching attention between modalities: Further evidence for visual dominance. Psychological Research 2010, 74:255-267.
12. Mayr U., Kliegl R. Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2003, 29:362-372.
13. Meiran N. Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1996, 22:1423-1442.
14. Meiran N. Modeling cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Research 2000, 63:234-249.
15. Meiran N. Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes 2000, 377-400. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. S. Monsell, J. Driver (Eds.).
16. Meiran N. The dual implication of dual affordance: Stimulus-task binding and attentional focus changing during task preparation. Experimental Psychology 2008, 55:252-260.
17. Meiran N., Hommel B., Bibi U., Lev I. Consciousness and control in task switching. Consciousness and Cognition 2002, 11:10-33.
18. Monsell S. Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2003, 7:134-140.
19. Murray M.M., De Santis L., Thut G., Wylie G.R. The costs of crossing paths and switching tasks between audition and vision. Brain and Cognition 2009, 69:47-55.
20. Philipp A.M., Koch I. Switching of response modalities. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 2005, 58A:1325-1338.
21. Posner M.I., Nissen M.J., Klein R.M. Visual dominance: An information-processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review 1976, 83:157-171.
22. Quinlan P.T., Hill N.I. Sequential effects in rudimentary auditory and visual tasks. Perception & Psychophysics 1999, 61:375-384.
23. Rogers R.D., Monsell S. Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1995, 124:207-231.
24. Rubinstein J.S., Meyer D.E., Evans J.E. Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2001, 27:763-797.
25. Sinnett S., Spence C., Soto-Faraco S. Visual dominance and attention: The Colavita effect revisited. Perception & Psychophysics 2007, 69:673-686.
26. Spence C., Driver J. On measuring selective attention to an expected sensory modality. Perception & Psychophysics 1997, 59:389-403.
27. Spence C., Nicholls M.E.R., Driver J. The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality. Perception & Psychophysics 2001, 63:330-336.
28. Verbruggen F., Liefooghe B., Vandierendonck A., Demanet J. Short cue presentations encourage advance task preparation: A recipe to diminsh the residual switch cost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 2007, 33:342-356.
29. Wylie G., Allport A. Task switching and the measurement of "switch costs". Psychological Research 2000, 63:212-233.
30. Wylie G.R., Murray M.M., Javitt D.C., Foxe J.J. Distinct neurophysiological mechanisms mediate mixing costs and switch costs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 2009, 21:105-118.