Top

Optie A:

Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
Optie B:

Deel de link per e-mail
Link delen

volgende artikel Task switching based on externally presented ve...

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

01-09-2008 | Original Article | Uitgave 5/2008

Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): a theoretical framework for task switching

Tijdschrift:: Psychological Research > Uitgave 5/2008

Auteurs:: Nachshon Meiran, Yoav Kessler, Esther Adi-Japha

» Toegang tot de volledige tekst krijgen

Abstract

Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS) is a modeling framework for task-switching experiments, which considers action-related effects as critical constraints. It assumes that control operates by choosing control parameter values, representing input selection and action representation. Competing CARIS models differ in whether (a) control parameters are determined by current instructions or represent a perseveration, (b) current instructions apply to the input selection and/or to action representation. According to the chosen model (a) task execution results in a default bias in favor of the executed task thus creating perseverative tendencies; (b) control counteracts these tendencies by applying a transient momentary bias whose locus (input selection or action representation) changes as a function of task preparation time; (c) this happens because the task-cue (e.g., SHAPE) initially attracts attention to the immediately available cue-information (e.g., target shape) and then attracts it to inferred or retrieved information (e.g., “circle” is related to the right key press).

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Hier inloggen

Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:

BSL Psychologie Totaal

Met BSL Psychologie Totaal blijft u als professional steeds op de hoogte van de nieuwste ontwikkelingen binnen uw vak. Met het online abonnement heeft u toegang tot een groot aantal boeken, protocollen, vaktijdschriften en e-learnings op het gebied van psychologie en psychiatrie. Zo kunt u op uw gemak en wanneer het u het beste uitkomt verdiepen in uw vakgebied.

Meer informatie

Ach, N. (2006). On volition (T. Herz, Trans.). (Original work published 1910) Retrieved from University of Konstanz, Cognitive Psychology Web site: http://www.uni-konstanz.de/kogpsych/ach.htm.

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 Unconscious Processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (2000). ‘Task-switching’, stimulus-response bindings and negative priming. In: S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVIII: Control of Cognitive Processes (pp. 35–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Altmann, E. M. (2006). Task switching is not cue switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 1016–1022.

Altmann, E. M. (2007). Comparing switch costs: Alternating runs and explicit cuing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 475–483. PubMedCrossRef

Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2002). Forgetting to remember: The functional relationship of decay and interference. Psychological Science, 13, 27–33. PubMedCrossRef

Arrington, C. M., Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2007). Separating cue encoding from target processing in the explicit task cuing procedure. Are there “true” task switch effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 484–502. CrossRef

Badre, D., & Wagner, A. D. (2006). Computational and neurobiological mechanisms underlying cognitive flexibility. PNAS, 103, 7186–7191. PubMedCrossRef

Brass, M., Ruge, H., Meiran, N., Rubin, O., Koch, I, Zysset, S., Prinz, W., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2003). When the same response has different meaning: Recoding the response meaning in the lateral prefrontal cortex. NeuroImage, 20, 1026–1031. PubMedCrossRef

Braver, T. S., Reynolds, J. R., & Donaldson, D. I. (2003). Neural mechanisms of transient and sustained cognitive control during task switching. Neuron, 39, 713–726. PubMedCrossRef

Brown, J. W., Reynolds, J. R., & Braver, T. S. (2007). A computational model of fractionated conflict-control mechanisms in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 55, 37–85. PubMedCrossRef

Campbell, K. C., & Proctor, R. W. (1993). Repetition effects with categorizable stimulus and response sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1345–1362. CrossRef

De Jong, R. (1995). Strategical determinants of compatibility effects with task uncertainty. Acta Psychologica, 88, 187–207. CrossRef

De Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In: S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVIII: Control of Cognitive Processes (pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

De Pisapia, N, & Braver, T. S. (2006). A model of dual control mechanisms through anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex interactions. Neurocomputing, 69, 1322–1326. CrossRef

Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193–222. PubMedCrossRef

Diamond, A. (1985). Development of the ability use to recall to guide action, as indicated by infant’s performance on AB. Child Development, 56, 868–883. PubMedCrossRef

Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., & Haider, H. (2006). Implicit task sets during task switching? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 32, 1221–1233. CrossRef

Fagot, C. (1994). Chronometric investigations of task switching. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of California, San Diego.

Fey, E. T. (1951). The performance of young schizophrenics and young normals on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 15, 311–319. PubMedCrossRef

Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007a). Cue-task associations in task switching. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 762–769. PubMedCrossRef

Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007b). The influence of overlapping response sets on task inhibition. Memory & Cognition, 35, 603–609.

Gilbert, S. J., & Shallice, T. (2002). Task switching: A PDP model. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 297–337. PubMedCrossRef

Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task-set switching. In: S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVIII: Control of Cognitive Processes (pp. 331–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hackley, S. A., & Valle-Inclan, F. (1998). Automatic alerting does not speed late motoric processes in a reaction-time task. Nature, 391, 786–788. PubMedCrossRef

Hackley, S. A., & Valle-Inclan, F. (1999). Accessory stimulus effects on response selection: Does arousal speed decision making? Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 321–329. PubMedCrossRef

Hintzman, D. L. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411–428. CrossRef

Hoffmann, J., Kiesel, A., & Sebald, A. (2003). Task switches under go/nogo conditions and the decomposition of switch costs. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15, 101–128. CrossRef

Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55, 270–279. CrossRef

Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937. PubMedCrossRef

Hübner, R., & Druey, M. (2006). Response execution, selection, or activation: What is sufficient for response-related repetition effects under task shifting? Psychological Research, 70, 245–261. PubMedCrossRef

Kleinsorge, T. (1999). Response repetition benefits and costs. Acta Psychologica, 103, 295–310. PubMedCrossRef

Kleinsorge, T., & Heuer, H. (1999). Hierarchical switching in a multi-dimensional task space. Psychological Research, 62, 300–312. CrossRef

Koch, I. (2005). Sequential task predictability in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 107–112.

Koch, I., & Allport, A. (2006). Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching. Memory & Cognition, 34, 433-444.

Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2005). Effects of response selection on the task-repetition benefit in task switching. Memory & Cognition, 33, 624–634.

Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451–468. PubMedCrossRef

Loehlin, J. C. (1987). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 575–599. PubMedCrossRef

Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434. PubMedCrossRef

Lorch, R. F., & Myers, J. L. (1990). Regression analysis of repeated measures data in cognitive research. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 149–157. PubMedCrossRef

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. CrossRef

Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2003). Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 556–574. PubMedCrossRef

Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2006). Dual route for subtask order control: Evidence from the Psychological Refractory Period paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 59, 720–744.

Mayr, U. (2001). Age differences in the selection of mental sets: The role of inhibition, stimulus ambiguity, and response-set overlap. Psychology and Aging, 16, 96–109. PubMedCrossRef

Mayr, U., & Bryck, R. L. (2005). Sticky rules: integration between abstract rules and specific actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 337–350. PubMedCrossRef

Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4–26. CrossRef

Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 1124–1140. CrossRef

Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 29, 362–372. CrossRef

Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 1423–1442. CrossRef

Meiran, N. (2000a). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234–249. PubMedCrossRef

Meiran, N. (2000b). The reconfiguration of the stimulus task-set and the response task set during task switching. In: S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVIII: Control of Cognitive Processes (pp. 377–400). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Meiran, N. (2005). Task rule congruency and Simon-like effects in switching between spatial tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 58A, 1023–1041.

Meiran, N. (2008a). Task switching: Mechanisms underlying rigid vs. flexible self control. In: R. Hassin, K. Ochsner, & Y. Trope (Eds.) Social Cognition and Social Neuroscience, NY: Oxford University Press (in press).

Meiran, N. (2008b). The dual implication of dual affordance: Stimulus-task binding and attentional focus changing during task preparation. Experimental Psychology. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169.55.4.252.

Meiran, N., & Chorev, Z. (2005). Phasic alertness and the residual task-switch cost. Experimental Psychology, 52, 109–124. PubMed

Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211–253. PubMedCrossRef

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

Meiran, N., Gotler, A., & Perlman, A. (2001). Old age is associated with a pattern of relatively intact and relatively impaired task-set switching abilities. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 56B, 88–102.

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, 137–157. PubMedCrossRef

Meiran, N., Levine, J., Meiran, N., & Henik, A. (2000). Task set switching in schizophrenia. Neuropsychology, 14, 471–482. PubMedCrossRef

Meiran, N., & Marciano, H. (2002). Limitations in advance task preparation: Switching the relevant stimulus dimension in speeded same-different comparisons. Memory & Cognition, 30, 540–550.

Meuter, R. F. I., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25–40. CrossRef

Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202. PubMedCrossRef

Milner, B. (1964). Some effects of frontal lobectomy in man. In: J. M. Warren, & K. Akert (Eds.), The Frontal Granular Cortex and Behavior (pp. 313–334). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140. PubMedCrossRef

Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task cuing paradigm measure an “endogenous” task set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 493–516. PubMedCrossRef

Monsell, S., Sumner, P., & Waters, H. (2003). Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches. Memory and Cognition, 31, 327–342.

Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In: R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.) Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum.

Pashler, H. (1991). Shifting visual attention and selecting motor responses: Distinct attentional mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 1023–1040. PubMedCrossRef

Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991). Procedural learning: 2. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 33–48. CrossRef

Philipp, A. M., Jolicœur, P., Falkenstein, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Response selection and response execution in task switching: Evidence from a go-signal paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 33, 1062–1075. CrossRef

Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2005). Switching of response modalities. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1325–1338.

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.

Pitt, M. A., Kim, W., Navarro, D. J., & Myung, J. I. (2006). Global model analysis by parameter space partitioning. Psychological Review, 113, 57–83. PubMedCrossRef

Quinlan, P. T., & Hill, N. I. (1999). Sequential effects in rudimentary auditory and visual tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 375–384.

Riefer, D. M., & Batchelder, W. H. (1988). Multinomial modeling and the measurement of cognitive processes. Psychological Review, 95, 318–339. CrossRef

Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). The cost of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231. CrossRef

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, and Cognition, 31, 1477–1491. PubMedCrossRef

Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763–797. PubMedCrossRef

Ruge, H., Brass, M., Koch, I., Rubin, O., Meiran, N., & von Cramon, D. Y., (2005). Advance preparation and stimulus induced interference in cued task switching: Further insights from BOLD fMRI. Neuropsychologia, 43, 340–355. PubMedCrossRef

Ruthruff, E., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (2001). Switching between simple cognitive tasks: The interaction of top-down and bottom-up factors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1404–1419. PubMedCrossRef

Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Modeling task switching without switching tasks: A short-term memory priming account of explicitly cued performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 343–367. CrossRef

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, 92–105. PubMedCrossRef

Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2004). The cost of changing the representation of action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 566–582. PubMedCrossRef

Shalev, L., & Algom, D. (2000). Stroop and Garner effects in and out of Posner’s beam: Reconciling two conceptions of selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 997–1017. PubMedCrossRef

Sohn, M. H., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Task preparation and task repetition: Two-component model of task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 764–778. CrossRef

Sosna, G. (2001). Practice and transfer in task-switching: The effect of quantity and frequency of switching. Unpublished MA Thesis, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva.

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, 517–534. PubMedCrossRef

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

Treisman, A.M. (1969). Strategies and models of selective attention. Psychological Review, 76, 282–299. PubMedCrossRef

Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., Szmalec, A., & Vandierendonck, A. (2005). Inhibiting responses when switching: Does it matter? Experimental Psychology, 52, 125–130. PubMed

Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Selective stopping in task switching: The role of response selection and response execution. Experimental Psychology, 53, 48–57. PubMed

Ward, L. M. (1982). Determinants of attention to local and global features of visual forms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 562–581. PubMedCrossRef

Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stumulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 361–413. PubMedCrossRef

Woodward, T. S., Meier, B., Tipper, C., & Graf, P. (2003). Bivalency is costly: Bivalent stimuli elicit cautious responding. Experimental Psychology, 50, 233–238. PubMed

Yehene, E., & Meiran, N. (2007). Is there a general task switching ability? Acta Psychologica, 126, 169–195. PubMedCrossRef

Yehene, E., Meiran, N., & Soroker, N. (2005). Task alternation cost without task alternation: Measuring intentionality. Neuropsychologia, 43, 1858–1869. PubMedCrossRef

Yehene, E. & Meiran, N., & Soroker, N. (2008). Basal ganglia play a unique role in task switching within the frontal-sub-cortical circuits: Evidence from patients with focal lesions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20077.

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, 455–469. PubMedCrossRef

Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003b). The effects of recent practice on task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 919–936. PubMedCrossRef

Yeung, N., Nystrom, L. E., Aronson, J. A., & Cohen, J. D. (2006). Between-task competition and cognitive control in task switching. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 1429 –1438. PubMedCrossRef

Zelazo, P. D., & Frye, D. (1997). Cognitive complexity and control: A theory of the development of deliberate reasoning and intentional action. In: M. Stamenov (Ed.), Language structure, discourse, and the access to consciousness (pp. 113–153). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Zhao, J-H. (2005). A probabilistic mechanics approach to die cracking prediction in flip-chip ball grid array package. IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging, 28, 390–396. CrossRef

Titel: Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): a theoretical framework for task switching
Auteurs:: Nachshon Meiran
Yoav Kessler
Esther Adi-Japha
Publicatiedatum: 01-09-2008
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0136-8
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Tijdschrift: Psychological Research An International Journal of Perception, Attention, Memory, and Action
Uitgave 5/2008
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:

BSL Psychologie Totaal

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2008

Dealing with indeterminacy in spatial descriptions

An egocentric frame of reference in implicit motor sequence learning

The dynamic-stimulus advantage of visual symmetry perception

Response inhibition under task switching: its strength depends on the amount of task-irrelevant response activation

On the interplay between familiarity and emotional expression in face perception

Practice effects on strategy selection and strategy efficiency in simple mental arithmetic