Competitor Rule Priming: Evidence for priming of task rules in task switching

Psychological Research

Volumn 79, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 446-462

  Katzir, Maayan ^a   Ori, Bnaya ^a   Hsieh, Shulan ^b   Meiran, Nachshon ^a  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

^b NATIONAL CHENG KUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FEMALE; HUMAN; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PHYSIOLOGY; REACTION TIME; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; YOUNG ADULT;

FEMALE; HUMANS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; REACTION TIME; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84939881794     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00426-014-0583-3     Document Type: Article

References (33)

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 nonconsciousinformation processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT Press.
2. Allport, D. A., & Wylie, G. (2000). “Task–switching”, stimulus–response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: attention and performance XVIII (pp. 35–70). Cambridge: MIT Press.
3. Astle, D. E., Jackson, G. M., & Swainson, R. (2012). Two measures of task-specific inhibition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,65(2), 233–251.
4. Barutchu, A., Becker, S. I., Carter, O., Hester, R., & Levy, N. L. (2013). The role of task-related learned representations in explaining asymmetries in task switching. PLoS ONE,8(4), e61729. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061729.
5. Botvinick, M., Braver, T., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review,108(3), 624–652.
6. Brown, J. W., Reynolds, J. R., & Braver, T. S. (2007). A computational model of fractionated conflict-control mechanisms in task switching. Cognitive Psychology,55(1), 37–85.
7. Bryck, R. L., & Mayr, U. (2008). Task selection cost asymmetry without task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,15(1), 128–134.
8. Druey, M., & Hübner, R. (2007). The role of temporal cue–target overlap in backward inhibition under task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,14(4), 749–754.
9. Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (2009). Temporal cue–target overlap is not essential for backward inhibition in task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,62(10), 2068–2079.
10. Hsieh, S., Chang, C–. C., & Meiran, N. (2012). Episodic retrieval and decaying inhibition in the competitor-rule suppression phenomenon. Acta Psychologica,41(3), 316–321.
11. Hsieh, S., & Liu, H. (2008). Electrophysiological correlates of task conflicts in task-switching. Brain Research,1203, 116–125.
12. 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, and Cognition,29(2), 289–297.
13. Jarmasz, J., & Hollands, J. G. (2009). Confidence intervals in repeated-measures designs: The number of observations principle. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,63, 124–138.
14. Kiesel, A., Wendt, M., & Peters, A. (2007). Task switching: on the origin of response congruency effects. Psychological Research,71(2), 117–125.
15. Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: a review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,17(1), 1–14.
16. Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 331–378). San Diego: Academic Press.
17. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin,109(2), 163–203.
18. Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: the role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,129(1), 4–26.
19. Meiran, N., & Daichman, A. (2005). Advance task preparation reduces task error rate in the cueing-task paradigm. Memory and Cognition,33, 1272–1288.
20. Meiran, N., Hsieh, S., & Chang, C. C. (2011). “Smart inhibition”: electrophysiological evidence for the suppression of conflict-generating task rules during task switching. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience,11(3), 292–308.
21. Meiran, N., Hsieh, S., & Dimov, E. (2010). Resolving task rule incongruence during task switching by competitor rule suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,36(4), 992–1002.
22. Meiran, N., & Kessler, Y. (2008). The task rule congruency effect in task switching reflects activated long term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,34(1), 137–157.
23. Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2006). Task inhibition and task repetition in task switching. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,18(4), 624–639.
24. Pinhas, M., Tzelgov, J., & Ganor-Stern, D. (2012). Estimating linear effects in ANOVA designs: the easy way. Behavior Research Methods,44(3), 788–794.
25. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime [Computer software]. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.
26. Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 92.
27. 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(3), 517–534.
28. Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,13, 89–103.
29. Tipper, S. P., Weaver, B., & Houghton, G. (1994). Behavioural goals determine inhibitory mechanisms of selective attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,47A, 809–840.
30. 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.
31. Wendt, M., & Kiesel, A. (2008). The impact of stimulus-specific practice and task instructions on response congruency effects between tasks. Psychological Research,72(4), 425–432.
32. Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003a). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: the role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,29(2), 455–469.
33. Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003b). The effects of recent practice on task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,29(5), 919–936.