Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Task switching studies revealed that the usual response-repetition benefit is abolished and often reversed if the task switches. According to episodic binding accounts, performing responses strengthens task-specific bindings, leading to response-repetition benefits in task repetitions, whereas such bindings can lead to interference (i.e., costs of “unbinding”) in task switches. An alternative account assumes that responses are generally inhibited after execution but that the assumed sequential carryover of response inhibition is overcompensated by positive priming of stimulus category in task repetitions (resulting in a positive net effect in response-repetition conditions). In the present study, we manipulated task-cue modality (visual vs. auditory) to introduce a variation of encoding and retrieval context, which should vary the strength of episodic bindings. Across two experiments (Experiment 1A, showing the initial evidence, and Experiment 1B, providing a successful replication), we found that the response-repetition benefit in task repetitions was substantially larger with repeated cue modality than with changed cue modality, suggesting that cue modality primes retrieval of task-specific stimulus categories and responses. However, the observed response-repetition cost in task switches remained unaffected by this contextual change. This data pattern suggests a hybrid account, assuming that response-repetition benefits are driven by episodic bindings, whereas response-repetition costs are primarily due to (non-episodic) carryover of response inhibition.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Altmann, E. M. (2011). Testing probability matching and episodic retrieval accounts of response repetition effects in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 935–951. PubMed
Druey, M. D. (2014). Stimulus-category and response-repetition effects in task switching: An evaluation of four explanations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 125–146. PubMed
Gade, M., Schuch, S., Druey, M., & Koch, I. (2014). Inhibitory control in task switching. In J. Grange & G. Houghton (Eds.), Task switching and cognitive control (pp. 137–159). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Grzyb, K. R., & Hübner, R. (2013). Excessive response-repetition costs under task switching: How response inhibition amplifies response conflict. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 126–139. PubMed
Horoufchin, H., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2011). The dissipating task-repetition benefit in cued task switching: Task-set decay or temporal distinctiveness? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 455–472. PubMed
Hübner, R., & Druey, M. D. (2006). Response execution, selection, or activation: What is sufficient for response-related repetition effects under task shifting? Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 72, 515–527.
Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jost, K., De Baene, W., Koch, I., & Brass, M. (2013). A review of the role of cue processing in task switching. Journal of Psychology/ Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 221, 5–14. CrossRef
Kleinsorge, T., & Heuer, H. (1999). Hierarchical switching in a multi-dimensional task space. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 62, 300–312. CrossRef
Koch, I., & Allport, A. (2006). Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching. Memory & Cognition, 34, 433–444. CrossRef
Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 1–14. CrossRef
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. PubMed
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
Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t-tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225–237. CrossRef
Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Modeling task switching without switching tasks: A short-term priming account of explicitly cued performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 343–367. CrossRef
Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2004). The costs of changing the representation of action: Response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 566–582. PubMed
- Explaining response-repetition effects in task switching: evidence from switching cue modality suggests episodic binding and response inhibition
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg