Temporal Distinctiveness in Task Switching: Assessing the Mixture-Distribution Assumption

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 7, Issue , 2016, Pages

  Grange, James A ^a  

^a KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

computational model; decay; interference; task switching

Indexed keywords

EID: 84997540654     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00251     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Altmann E. M. (2005). Repetition priming in task switching: do the benefits dissipate? Psychon. Bull. Rev. 12, 535–540. 10.3758/BF0319380116235642
2. Altmann E. M. Gray W. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychol. Rev. 115, 602–639. 10.1037/0033-295X.115.3.60218729594
3. Brown G. D. A. Neath I. Chater N. (2007). A temporal ratio model of memory. Psychol. Rev. 114, 539–576. 10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.53917638496
4. Brown S. D. Heathcote A. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice response time: linear ballistic accumulation. Cogn. Psychol. 57, 153–178. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2007.12.00218243170
5. Donkin C. Brown S. Heathcote A. (2011). Drawing conclusions from choice response time models: a tutorial using the linear ballistic accumulator. J. Math. Psychol. 55, 140–151. 10.1016/j.jmp.2010.10.001
6. Grange J. A. Cross E. (2015). Can time-based decay explain temporal distinctiveness effects in task switching? Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 68, 19–45. 10.1080/17470218.2014.93469625028178
7. Grange J. A. Houghton G. (ed.). (2014). Task Switching and Cognitive Control. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199921959.001.0001
8. Heathcote A. Brown S. Mewhort D. (2002). Quantile maximum likelihood estimation of response time distributions. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 9, 394–401. 10.3758/BF0319629912120806
9. Horoufchin H. Philipp A. M. Koch I. (2011a). The dissipating task-repetition benefit in cued task switching: task-set decay or temporal distinctiveness? J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 37, 455–472. 10.1037/a002055725556982
10. Horoufchin H. Philipp A. M. Koch I. (2011b). Temporal distinctiveness and repetition benefits in task switching: disentangling stimulus-related and response-related contributions. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 64, 434–446. 10.1080/17470218.2010.49685720680886
11. Kiesel A. Steinhauser M. Wendt M. Falkstein M. Jost K. Philipp A. et al. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychol. Bull. 136, 849–874. 10.1037/a001984220804238
12. Logan G. D. (2002). An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychol. Rev. 109, 376–400. 10.1037/0033-295X.109.2.37611990323
13. Logan G. D. Gordon R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychol. Rev. 108, 393–434. 10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.39311381835
14. Meiran N. Chorev Z. Sapir A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cogn. Psychol. 41, 211–253. 10.1006/cogp.2000.073611032657
15. Rouder J. N. Morey R. D. Speckman P. L. Province J. M. (2012). Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. J. Math. Psychol. 56, 356–374. 10.1016/j.jmp.2012.08.001
16. Schneider D. W. Logan G. D. (2005). Modeling task switching without switching tasks: a short-term priming account of explicitly cued performance. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 134, 343–367. 10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.34316131268
17. Van Maanen L. De Jong R. Van Rijn H. (2014). How to assess the existence of competing strategies in cognitive tasks: a primer on the fixed-point property. PLoS ONE 9:e106113. 10.1371/journal.pone.010611325170893
18. Vandierendonck A. Liefooghe B. Verbruggen F. (2010). Task switching: interplay of reconfiguration and interference. Psychol. Bull. 136, 601–626. 10.1037/a001979120565170