Current Task Activation Predicts General Effects of Advance Preparation in Task Switching
Abstract
Two experiments investigated the way that beforehand preparation influences general task execution in reaction-time matching tasks. Response times (RTs) and error rates were measured for switching and nonswitching conditions in a color- and shape-matching task. The task blocks could repeat (task repetition) or alternate (task switch), and the preparation interval (PI) was manipulated within-subjects (Experiment 1) and between-subjects (Experiment 2). The study illustrated a comparable general task performance after a long PI for both experiments, within and between PI manipulations. After a short PI, however, the general task performance increased significantly for the between-subjects manipulation of the PI. Furthermore, both experiments demonstrated an analogous preparation effect for both task switching and task repetitions. Next, a consistent switch cost throughout the whole run of trials and a within-run slowing effect were observed in both experiments. Altogether, the present study implies that the effects of the advance preparation go beyond the first trials and confirms different points of the activation approach (Altmann, 2002) to task switching.
References
Allport A. , Styles E. A. , Hsieh S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta, M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance (Vol 15 pp. 421-452). Cambridge, MA: MIT PressAllport A. , Wylie G. (2000). Task switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell, J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance (Vol 18 pp. 357-376). Cambridge, MA: MIT PressAltmann E. M. (2002). Functional decay of memory for tasks. Psychological Research, 66, 287– 297Altmann E. M. (2004a). Advance preparation in task switching: What work is being done?. Psychological Science, 15, 616– 622Altmann E. M. (2004b). The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA. Memory & Cognition, 32, 153– 163Altmann E. M. , Gray W. D. (2002). Forgetting to remember: The functional relationship of decay and interference. Psychological Science, 13, 27– 33Bishop Y. M. M. , Fienberg S. E. , Holland P. W. (1975). Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice . Cambridge, MA: MIT PressBrass M. , Cramon D. Y. von (2002). The role of the frontal cortex in task preparation. Cerebral Cortex, 12, 908– 914Brass M. , Cramon D. Y. von (2004). Decomposing components of task preparation with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16, 609– 620Erdfelder E. , Faul F. , Buchner A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 28, 1– 11Gopher D. , Armony L. , Greenshpan Y. (2000). Switching tasks and attention policies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 308– 339Gotler A. , Meiran N. , Tzelgov J. (2003). Nonintentional task- set activation: Evidence from implicit task sequence learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 890– 896Heuer H. , Schmidtke V. , Kleinsorge T. (2001). Implicit learning of sequences of tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 967– 983Jersild A. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 89,Koch I. (2005). Sequential task predictability in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 107– 112Kramer A. F. , Hahn S. , Gopher D. (1999). Task coordination and aging: Explorations of executive control processes in the task switching paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 101, 339– 378Logan 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– 599Los S. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials. Acta Psychologica, 94, 145– 188Mayr 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– 372Meiran N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423– 1442Meiran N. (2000). Modeling cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234– 249Monsell S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in cognitive science, 7, 134– 140Poulton E. C. (1982). Influential companions: Effects of one strategy on another in the within-subjects designs of cognitive psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 673– 690Rogers R. D. , Monsell S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207– 231Rubinstein 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– 797Ruthruff 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 & Performance, 27, 1404– 1419Sohn M. H. , Carlson R. A. (2000). Effects of repetition and foreknowledge in task-set reconfiguration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 1445– 1460Waszak 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– 413Wylie G. , Allport A. (2000). Task-switching and the measurement of “Switch costs.”. Psychological Research, 63, 212– 233
