Abstract
The explicit task-cuing procedure involves presenting a cue that indicates which task to perform on a target. Responses are typically faster when tasks repeat than when they alternate, and this difference is often interpreted as a measure of the time required for executive control processes to change task set. This article suggests that the difference reflects priming of cue encoding when successive cues are identical or associatively related. Subjects responded to task repetitions more quickly when the cue on the current trial was associatively related to the cue on the previous trial (e.g.,day →night) than when the cues were unrelated (e.g.,verb →night). Models applied to the time course function—generated by manipulating the interval between the onsets of the cue and the target—showed that the facilitation was due to cue encoding, a process that does not require online executive control.
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, Bradford Books.
Allport, 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). Episodic and semantic components of the compound-stimulus strategy in the explicit taskcuing procedure.Memory & Cognition,32, 965–978.
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,11, 832–840.
Logan, G. D., &Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations.Psychological Review,108, 393–434.
Logan, G. D., &Zbrodoff, N. J. (1982). Constraints on strategy construction in a speeded discrimination task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 502–520.
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., Chorev, Z., &Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching.Cognitive Psychology,41, 211–253.
Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. Humphreys (Eds.),Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1999).The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and fragment norms. Retrieved February 5, 2004 from w3.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/.
Rogers, R. D., &Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,124, 207–231.
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.
Waszak, F., Hommel, B., &Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in taskshift costs.Cognitive Psychology,46, 361–413.
Waszak, F., Hommel, B., &Allport, A. (2004). Semantic generalization of stimulus-task bindings.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 1027–1033.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant BCS 0133202 from the National Science Foundation to G.D.L. We thank Julie Delheimer for conducting the experiment and analyzing parts of the data. Correspondence
Note—This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, when Colin M. MacLeod was Editor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Logan, G.D., Schneider, D.W. Priming or executive control? Associative priming of cue encoding increases “switch costs” in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Memory & Cognition 34, 1250–1259 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193269
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193269