Abstract
Flexible, context-dependent linkages between stimulus and response are fundamental to adaptive behavior. In the present article, we evaluate the limits of this flexibility by exploring the asymptotic efficiency of people’s ability to switch between two different sensorimotor mappings. Two stimulus—response (S—R) mappings were learned, either both on the same hand (unimanual condition) or one mapping per hand (intermanual condition). The S—R mappings presented bivalent stimuli and employed the same response keys. A novel training regimen successfully reduced task-switch costs to approximately 20 msec, suggesting that residual switch costs cannot be eliminated. These costs cannot be entirely attributed to the cognitive control process of task-set reconfiguration, because they are observed over cued switch intervals of several seconds. Two additional issues in motor learning were addressed: the single or dual loci of manual motor control and the coordinate system of task representation. First, the results favored the notion of independent controllers for each hand instead of a single dominant controller, since intermanual performance was superior to unimanual performance. Second, a transfer task tested internal (egocentric) and external (allocentric) coordinate systems. Transfer was more effective using the external coordinate system, suggesting that the S—R mappings reflected the association between the bivalent stimuli and external goals (i.e., the individual keys) rather than the concrete pattern of muscle contractions (i.e., the finger pressing the key). Finally, retention tests revealed that these learned S—R associations were remarkably durable, since no decrements in fluent task-switching performance were observed after 10 months without practice.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allport, D. 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.
Allport, D. 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 XVIII (pp. 35–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2004). The cost of a voluntary task switch. Psychological Science, 15, 610–615.
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.
Bradshaw, J. L., Nicholls, M. E., & Rogers, M. A. (1998). An intermanual advantage for tactual matching. Cortex, 34, 763–770.
Braun, C., Hess, H., Burkhardt, M., Wühle, A., & Preissl, H. (2005). The right hand knows what the left hand is feeling. Experimental Brain Research, 162, 366–373.
Charron, J. F., Collin, I., & Braun, C. M. J. (1996). Intermanual transfer of somaesthetic information: A two-point discrimination experiment. Neuropsychologia, 34, 873–877.
Cohen, D. A., Pascual-Leone, A., Press, D. Z., & Robertson, E. M. (2005). Off-line learning of motor skill memory: A double dissociation of goal and movement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 18237–18241.
Criscimagna-Hemminger, S. E., Donchin, O., Gazzaniga, M. S., & Shadmehr, R. (2003). Learned dynamics of reaching movements generalize from dominant to nondominant arm. Journal of Neurophysiology, 89, 168–176.
Cunningham, H. A., & Welch, R. B. (1994). Multiple concurrent visual—motor mappings: Implications for models of adaptation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 987–999.
Dassonville, P., Lewis, S. M., Foster, H. E., & Ashe, J. (1999). Choice and stimulus—response compatibility affect duration of response selection. Cognitive Brain Research, 7, 235–240.
de Jong, R. (1995). Strategical determinants of compatibility effects with task uncertainty. Acta Psychologica, 88, 187–207.
Diedrichsen, J., Hazeltine, E., Kennerley, S., & Ivry, R. B. (2001). Moving to directly cued locations abolishes spatial interference during bimanual actions. Psychological Science, 12, 493–498.
Diedrichsen, J., Hazeltine, E., Nurss, W. K., & Ivry, R. B. (2003). The role of the corpus callosum in the coupling of bimanual isometric force pulses. Journal of Neurophysiology, 90, 2409–2418.
Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., & Haider, H. (2007). The role of task rules and stimulus—response mappings in the task switching paradigm. Psychological Research, 71, 383–392.
Dreisbach, G., & Haider, H. (2008). That’s what task sets are for: Shielding against irrelevant information. Psychological Research, 72, 355–361. doi:10.1007/s00426-007-0131-5
Fitts, P. M., & Deininger, R. L. (1954). S—R compatibility: Correspondence among paired elements within stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 483–492.
Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S—R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199–210.
Fitts, P. M., & Simon, C. W. (1952). Some relations between stimulus patterns and performance in a continuous dual-pursuit task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 428–436.
Floyer-Lea, A., & Matthews, P. M. (2004). Changing brain networks for visuomotor control with increased movement automaticity. Journal of Neurophysiology, 92, 2405–2412.
Gilbert, S. J., & Shallice, T. (2002). Task switching: A PDP model. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 297–337.
Grafton, S. T., Hazeltine, E., & Ivry, R. B. (1998). Abstract and effector-specific representations of motor sequences identified with PET. Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 9420–9428.
Grafton, S. T., Hazeltine, E., & Ivry, R. B. (2002). Motor sequence learning with the nondominant left hand. A PET functional imaging study. Experimental Brain Research, 146, 369–378.
Halsband, U. (1992). Left hemisphere preponderance in trajectorial learning. NeuroReport, 3, 397–400.
Hasbroucq, T., Burle, B., Akamatsu, M., Vidal, F., & Possamaï, C.-A. (2001). An electromyographic investigation of the effect of stimulus—response mapping on choice reaction time. Psychophysiology, 38, 157–162.
Hazeltine, E. (2005). Response—response compatibility during bimanual movements: Evidence for the conceptual coding of action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 682–688.
Hazeltine, E., Bunge, S. A., Scanlon, M. D., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2003). Material-dependent and material-independent selection processes in the frontal and parietal lobes: An event-related fMRI investigation of response competition. Neuropsychologia, 41, 1208–1217.
Imamizu, H., & Shimojo, S. (1995). The locus of visual-motor learning at the task or manipulator level: Implications from intermanual transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 719–733.
Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 14, 5–81.
Jost, K., Mayr, U., & Rösler, F. (2008). Is task switching nothing but cue priming? Evidence from ERPs. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 74–84.
Jueptner, M., Stephan, K. M., Frith, C. D., Brooks, D. J., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Passingham, R. E. (1997). Anatomy of motor learning: I. Frontal cortex and attention to action. Journal of Neurophysiology, 77, 1313–1324.
Kimberg, D. Y., Aguirre, G. K., & D’Esposito, M. (2000). Modulation of task-related neural activity in task-switching: An fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 10, 189–196.
Kornblum, S., & Lee, J.-W. (1995). Stimulus—response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 855–875.
Krakauer, J. W., Pine, Z. M., Ghilardi, M. F., & Ghez, C. (2000). Learning of visuomotor transformations for vectorial planning of reaching trajectories. Journal of Neuroscience, 120, 8916–8924.
Kveraga, K., Boucher, L., & Hughes, H. C. (2002). Saccades operate in violation of Hick’s law. Experimental Brain Research, 146, 307–314.
Lange, R. K., Braun, C., & Godde, B. (2006). Coordinate processing during the left-to-right hand transfer investigated by EEG. Experimental Brain Research, 168, 547–556.
Lange, R. K., Godde, B., & Braun, C. (2004). EEG correlates of coordinate processing during intermanual transfer. Experimental Brain Research, 159, 161–171.
Lien, M. C., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). Stimulus—response compatibility and psychological refractory period effects: Implications for response selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 212–238.
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 & Performance, 29, 575–599.
Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 832–840.
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.
Malfait, N., Shiller, D. M., & Ostry, D. J. (2002). Transfer of motor learning across arm configurations. Journal of Neuroscience, 22, 9656–9660.
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.
Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1423–1442.
Meiran, N. (2000a). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234–249.
Meiran, N. (2000b). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 377–399). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 49–100.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.
Morton, S. M., Lang, C. E., & Bastian, A. J. (2001). Inter- and intra-limb generalization of adaptation during catching. Experimental Brain Research, 141, 438–445.
Nefs, H. T., Kappers, A. M. L., & Koenderink, J. J. (2005). Intermanual and intramanual tactual grating discrimination. Experimental Brain Research, 163, 123–127.
Nelson, M. D., & Hughes, H. C. (2007). Inhibitory processes mediate saccadic target selection. Perceptual Motor Skills, 105, 939–958.
Osman, A., Bashore, T. R., Coles, M. G., Donchin, E., & Meyer, D. E. (1992). On the transmission of partial information: Inferences from movement-related brain potentials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 217–232.
Pashler, H. (2000). Task switching and multitask performance. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 277–307). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Perez, M. A., Tanaka, S., Wise, S. P., Sadato, N., Tanabe, H. C., Willingham, D. T., & Cohen, L. G. (2007). Neural substrates of intermanual transfer of a newly acquired motor skill. Current Biology, 17, 1896–1902.
Proctor, R. W., Wang, H., & Vu, K.-P. (2002). Influences of different combinations of conceptual, perceptual, and structural similarity on stimulus—response compatibility. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A, 59–74.
Puttemans, V., Wenderoth, N., & Swinnen, S. P. (2005). Changes in brain activation during the acquisition of a multifrequency bimanual coordination task: From the cognitive stage to advanced levels of automaticity. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 4270–4278.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 763–797.
Sathian, K., & Zangaladze, A. (1998). Perceptual learning in tactile hyperacuity: Complete intermanual transfer but limited retention. Experimental Brain Research, 118, 131–134.
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.
Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2007). Retrieving information from a hierarchical plan. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 1076–1091.
Schulze, K., Lüders, E., & Jäncke, L. (2002). Intermanual transfer in a simple motor task. Cortex, 38, 805–815.
Shadmehr, R., & Moussavi, Z. M. (2000). Spatial generalization from learning dynamic of reaching movements. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 7807–7815.
Shadmehr, R., & Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A. (1994). Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of motor task. Journal of Neuroscience, 14, 3208–3224.
Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S—R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.
Simon, J. R., & Small, A. M., Jr. (1969). Processing auditory information: Interference from an irrelevant cue. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 433–435.
Stoet, G., & Snyder, L. H. (2003). Executive control and task switching in monkeys. Neuropsychologia, 41, 1357–1364.
Stoet, G., & Snyder, L. H. (2007). Extensive practice does not eliminate human switch costs. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 192–197.
Taylor, H. G., & Heilman, K. M. (1980). Left-hemisphere motor dominance in righthanders. Cortex, 16, 587–603.
Teixeira, L. A. (2000). Timing and force components in bilateral transfer of learning. Brain & Cognition, 44, 455–469.
Theios, J. (1975). The components of response latency in simple human information processing tasks. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & S. Dornic (Eds.), Attention and performance V (pp. 418–440). New York: Academic Press.
Thut, G., Cook, N. D., Regard, M., Leenders, K. L., Halsband, U., & Landis, T. (1996). Intermanual transfer of proximal and distal motor engrams in humans. Experimental Brain Research, 108, 321–327.
Ungerleider, L. G., Doyon, J., & Karni, A. (2002). Imaging brain plasticity during motor skill learning. Neurobiology of Learning & Memory, 78, 553–564.
Vangheluwe, S., Wenderoth, N., & Swinnen, S. P. (2005). Learning and transfer of an ipsilateral coordination task: Evidence for a duallayer movement representation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17, 1460–1470.
Wahl, M., Lauterbach-Soon, B., Hattingen, E., Jung, P., Singer, O., Volz, S., et al. (2007). Human motor corpus callosum: Topography, somatotopy, and link between microstructure and function. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 12132–12138.
Wang, J., & Sainburg, R. L. (2004). Interlimb transfer of novel inertial dynamics is asymmetrical. Journal of Neurophysiology, 92, 349–360.
Willingham, D. B. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of motor skill learning. Psychological Review, 105, 558–584.
Willingham, D. B., Wells, L. A., Farrell, J. M., & Stemwedel, M. E. (2000). Implicit motor sequence learning is represented in response locations. Memory & Cognition, 28, 366–375.
Woodworth, R. S., & Schlosberg, H. (1954). Experimental Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Wylie, G., & Allport, A. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs.” Psychological Research, 63, 212–233.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Note—Accepted by the previous editorial team, when Thomas H. Carr was Editor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Berryhill, M.E., Hughes, H.C. On the minimization of task switch costs following long-term training. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 71, 503–514 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.3.503
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.3.503