Abstract
When one is sequentially switching among three tasks, performance is impaired when tasks alternate (ABA) relative to when one is switching between all three tasks (CBA), an effect known as backward inhibition (BI). BI is not observed when component tasks are uniquely located in space, however (Arbuthnott, 2005). In this study, the locations of task precues and target stimuli were manipulated independently to determine whether this elimination of BI is related to distinct cue location or to distinct target location. Results clearly indicated that BI is eliminated with distinct cue localization independent of the location of target stimuli. This indicates that BI, which reflects suppression of task-set representations, can be influenced by cue characteristics that are associated with task representations.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
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 nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Altmann, E. M. (2007). Cue-independent task-specific representations in task switching: Evidence from backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 892–899.
Arbuthnott, K. D. (2005). The influence of cue type on backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1030–1042.
Arbuthnott, K. D. (2008a). Asymmetric switch cost and backward inhibition: Carryover activation and inhibition in switching between tasks of unequal difficulty. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 91–100.
Arbuthnott, K. [D.] (2008b). The effect of task location and task type on backward inhibition. Memory & Cognition, 36, 534–543.
Arbuthnott, K. [D.], & Frank, J. (2000). Executive control in set switching: Residual switch cost and task-set inhibition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 33–41.
Arbuthnott, K. D., & Woodward, T. S. (2002). The influence of cue-task association and location on switch cost and alternating-switch cost. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 18–29.
Druey, M. D., & Hübner, R. (2007). The role of temporal cue-target overlap in backward inhibition under task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 749–754.
Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2005). Linking inhibition to activation in the control of task sequences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 530–534.
Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). The influence of overlapping response sets on task inhibition. Memory & Cognition, 35, 603–609.
Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2008). Dissociating cue-related and task-related processes in task inhibition: Evidence from using a 2:1 cue-to-task mapping. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 51–55.
Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 331–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (in press). Temporal cue-target overlap is not essential for backward inhibition in task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
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, & Cognition, 29, 289–297.
Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476–490.
Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 832–840.
Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2006). Interpreting instructional cues in task switching procedures: The role of mediator retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 32, 347–363.
Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207.
Mayr, U., & Bryck, R. L. (2007). Outsourcing control to the environment: Effects of stimulus/response locations on task selection. Psychological Research, 71, 107–116.
Mayr, U., Diedrichsen, J., Ivry, R., & Keele, S. W. (2006). Dissociating task-set selection from task-set inhibition in the prefrontal cortex. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 14–21.
Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4–26.
Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 362–372.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.
Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 92–105.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arbuthnott, K.D. The representational locus of spatial influence on backward inhibition. Memory & Cognition 37, 522–528 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.4.522
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.4.522