Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-05-2015 | Original Article

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

Auteurs: Maayan Katzir, Bnaya Ori, Shulan Hsieh, Nachshon Meiran

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2015

Abstract

In task-switching experiments, participants switch between task rules, and each task rule describes how responses are mapped to stimulus information. Importantly, task rules do not pertain to any specific response but to all possible responses. This work examined the hypothesis that task rules, as wholes, rather than (just) specific responses are primed by their execution, such that, in the following trial, response conflicts are exacerbated when the competing responses are generated by these recently primed rules, and performance becomes relatively poor. This hypothesis was supported in two task-switching experiments and re-analyses of additional three published experiments, thus indicating Competitor Rule Priming. Importantly, the Competitor Rule-Priming effect was independent of response repetition vs. switch, suggesting that it reflects the priming of the entire task rule rather than the priming (or suppression) of specific responses. Moreover, this effect was obtained regardless of Backward Inhibition, suggesting these effects are unrelated.

vorige artikel The coding of repetitions and alternations in action sequences: spatial or relational?

volgende artikel No differences in dual-task costs between forced- and free-choice tasks

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

It is important to note that the analyses reported in this paper include a confound relating to the number of competitors in Trial N. Specifically, due to the selection criteria of the Competitor Rule-Priming effect, CRP+ included more trials with two competitor rules and fewer trials with one competitor rule than CRP– trials. This confound works in favor of the Competitor Rule-Priming effect. To assure that the Competitor Rule-Priming effect is not solely a result of this confound, we ran another repeated measures ANOVA with Congruency in Trial N, and Competitor Rule Priming as within participants independent variables, and Experiment as between-participants variable (cells were created by averaging across tasks). The Competitor Rule-Priming effect remained significant both in RT, F(1, 128) = 6.18, p = .014, η _p ² = .05, and in PE, F(1, 128) = 19.51, p < .001, η _p ² = .13. Importantly, the Competitor Rule-Priming effect did not interact with Congruency in Trial N or with the interaction Congruency in Trial N × Experiment, in RT and in PE, all Fs < 1. This analysis therefore rules out the aforementioned potential confound.

There is also the possibility that the Competitor Rule-Priming effect does not represent cost in CRP+ trials, but rather benefit in CRP− trials. Either way, the difference in performance between the two conditions can only result from priming (or the lack of priming) of the previously relevant rule, which became a competitor rule in Trial N. Specifically, it could be that in CRP+ trials, the competitor rule is primed and this leads to cost, and it could be that in CRP− trials, the competitor rule is not primed, and this leads to benefit. Although we find the former more plausible than the latter, the important issue is that only priming can explain the results obtained in this paper. Note that the question of cost vs. benefit is raised also with regard to Competitor Rule Suppression. Therefore, the question whether Competitor Rule Priming and Competitor Rule Suppression represent cost in CRP+/CRS+ trials or benefit in CRP–/CRS– trials awaits future research.

We thank Andrea Kiesel for suggesting this option.

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.

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.

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

Bryck, R. L., & Mayr, U. (2008). Task selection cost asymmetry without task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15(1), 128–134.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Hsieh, S., & Liu, H. (2008). Electrophysiological correlates of task conflicts in task-switching. Brain Research, 1203, 116–125.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

Kiesel, A., Wendt, M., & Peters, A. (2007). Task switching: on the origin of response congruency effects. Psychological Research, 71(2), 117–125.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.

MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163–203.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRef

Meiran, N., & Daichman, A. (2005). Advance task preparation reduces task error rate in the cueing-task paradigm. Memory and Cognition, 33, 1272–1288.CrossRefPubMed

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.PubMed

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.PubMed

Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2006). Task inhibition and task repetition in task switching. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(4), 624–639.CrossRef

Pinhas, M., Tzelgov, J., & Ganor-Stern, D. (2012). Estimating linear effects in ANOVA designs: the easy way. Behavior Research Methods, 44(3), 788–794.CrossRefPubMed

Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime [Computer software]. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.

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.

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.PubMed

Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 89–103.PubMed

Tipper, S. P., Weaver, B., & Houghton, G. (1994). Behavioural goals determine inhibitory mechanisms of selective attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 809–840.CrossRef

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.

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.CrossRefPubMed

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.PubMed

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.PubMed

Titel: Competitor Rule Priming: Evidence for priming of task rules in task switching
Auteurs: Maayan Katzir
Bnaya Ori
Shulan Hsieh
Nachshon Meiran
Publicatiedatum: 01-05-2015
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2015
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0583-3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2015

No differences in dual-task costs between forced- and free-choice tasks

Two is better than one: bilingual education promotes the flexible mind

The coding of repetitions and alternations in action sequences: spatial or relational?

Selective attention and recognition: effects of congruency on episodic learning

Aging increases distraction by auditory oddballs in visual, but not auditory tasks

Beyond trial types