Abstract
Four experiments were conducted to identify the costs of implementing a plan in the task span procedure, which requires subjects to retrieve the task to perform on the current target from a list of planned tasks in memory. Experiment 1 compared switch costs in the task span procedure with switch costs in the explicit taskcuing procedure, which presented cues indicating the task to perform on each target. Switch costs were greater in the task span procedure. Experiments 2–4 were designed to identify the sources of this difference. Experiment 2 showed that the requirement of establishing a correspondence between the list of task names and the list of targets contributed to switch costs. Experiment 3 showed that retaining lists of similar task names produced greater switch costs than did retaining lists of dissimilar task names. Experiment 4 showed that memory load had no effect on switch costs. The results are discussed in terms of the interaction between plan-level and task-level processing in the implementation of plans.
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, Bradford Books.
Allport, D. A., &Wylie, G. R. (2000). Task switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 35–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Anderson, J. R., &Betz, J. (2001). A hybrid model of categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 629–647.
Anderson, J. R., &Matessa, M. P. (1997). A production system theory of serial memory. Psychological Review,104, 728–748.
Arrington, C. M., &Logan, G. D. (2004). Episodic and semantic components of the compound-stimulus strategy in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Memory & Cognition,32, 965–976.
Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Egeth, H. (1977). Attention and preattention. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 11, pp. 277–320). New York: Academic Press.
Gilbert, S. J., &Shallice, T. (2002). Task switching: A PDP model. Cognitive Psychology,44, 297–337.
Hayes-Roth, B., &Hayes-Roth, F. (1988). A cognitive model of planning. In A. M. Collins & E. E. Smith (Eds.),Readings in cognitive science: A perspective from psychology and artificial intelligence (pp. 496–513). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Hommel, B. (2000). The prepared reflex: Automaticity and control in stimulus-response translation. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 247–273). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kotovsky, K., Hayes, J. R., &Simon, H. A. (1985). Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi. Cognitive Psychology,17, 248–294.
Logan, G. D. (1978). Attention in character classification: Evidence for the automaticity of component stages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,107, 32–63.
Logan, G. D. (2002). An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychological Review,109, 376–400.
Logan, G. D. (2003). Executive control of thought and action: In search of the wild homunculus. Current Directions in Psychological Science,12, 45–48.
Logan, G. D. (2004). Working memory, task switching, and executive control in the task span procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,133, 218–236.
Logan, G. D. (2006). Out with the old, in with the new: More valid measures of switch cost and retrieval time in the task span procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,13, 139–144.
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., &Schneider, D. W. (2006). Priming or executive control? Associative priming of cue encoding increases “switch costs” in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Memory & Cognition,34, 1250–1259.
Mayr, U., &Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1124–1140.
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.
McNamara, T. P. (2005).Semantic priming: Perspectives from memory and word recognition. New York: Psychology Press.
Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1423–1442.
Meiran, N. (2000). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 377–399). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., &Pribram, K. H. (1960).Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 134–140.
Nosofsky, R. M. (1991). Relation between the rational model and the context model of classification. Psychological Science,2, 416–421.
Oh, S.-H., &Kim, M.-S. (2004). The role of spatial working memory in visual search efficiency. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 275–281.
Ruthruff, 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, 1404–1419.
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. (2006). Priming cue encoding by manipulating transition frequency in explicitly cued task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,13, 145–151.
Sohn, M.-H., &Anderson, J. R. (2001). Task preparation and task repetition: Two-component model of task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 764–778.
Sohn, M.-H., &Carlson, R. A. (2000). Effects of repetition and foreknowledge in task-set reconfiguration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1445–1460.
Sudevan, P., &Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,13, 89–103.
Thomas, J. C. (1974). An analysis of behavior in the hobbits-orcs problem. Cognitive Psychology,6, 257–269.
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.
Woodman, G. F., &Luck, S. J. (2004). Visual search is slowed when visuospatial working memory is occupied. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 269–274.
Woodman, G. F., Vogel, E. K., &Luck, S. J. (2001). Visual search remains efficient when visual working memory is full. Psychological Science,12, 219–224.
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
This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grants BCS 0133202 and BCS 0446806.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Logan, G.D. What it costs to implement a plan: Plan-level and task-level contributions to switch costs. Memory & Cognition 35, 591–602 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193297
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193297