Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The costs and benefits of cross-task priming

  • Published:
Memory & Cognition Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two lines of research on cross-task priming yield opposite results. Research on repetition priming observed positive priming, whereas research on the role of priming in task-switching observed negative effects. We combined the two types of design. In the transfer phase of our paradigm, subjects performed task B either as a pure block (BBB) or as a switch block (ABAB). We presented items which were either unprimed or primed by prior presentation during a preceding priming phase performed on task A. Amongst others, the priming effect is determined by two factors: First, the more operation time the system needs during the probe event, the higher the likelihood to obtain priming. Protracting operation time by reducing stimulus quality favors positive priming, whereas providing more operation time by making subjects switch between tasks favors negative priming. Second, the strength of the memory trace of the prime event determines whether that trace can possibly yield negative priming, in that only strong traces can be retrieved together with the associated task/response.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allport, A. (1987). Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.),Perspectives on perception and action (pp. 395–419). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 15: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, C. A. (1976). Allocation of attention during visual word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 556–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, C. A. &Killion, T. H. (1977). Interaction of visual and cognitive effects in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 389–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colzato, L. S., Erasmus, V., &Hommel, B. (2004). Moderate alcohol consumption in humans impairs feature binding in visual perception but not across perception and action.Neuroscience Letters,360, 103–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colzato, L. S., Fagioli, S., Erasmus, V., &Hommel, B. (2005). Caffeine, but not nicotine enhances visual feature binding.European Journal of Neuroscience,21, 591–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSchepper, B., &Treisman, A. (1996). Visual memory for novel shapes: Implicit coding without attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 27–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, A. W., Young, A. W., &Flude, B. M. (1990). Repetition priming and face processing: Priming occurs within the system that responds to the identity of a face.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,42A, 495–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel, A. K. &Singer, W. (2001). Temporal binding and the neural correlates of sensory awareness.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,5, 16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franks, J. J., Bilbrey, C. W, Lien, G. H., &McNamara, T. P. (2000). Transfer-appropriate processing (TAP) and repetition priming.Memory & Cognition,28, 1140–1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmore, G. C., Groth, K. E., &Thomas, C. W. (2005) Stimulus contrast and word reading speed in Alzheimer’s disease.Experimental Aging Research,31, 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, S. C. &Logan, G. D. (1993). The loss of repetition priming and automaticity over time as a function of degree of initial learning.Memory & Cognition,21, 611–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, J., Schmitz, F., Schnitzler, I., Kessler, K., Shapiro, K., Hommel, B., &Schnitzler, A. (2004). Long-range neural synchrony predicts temporal limitations of visual attention in humans.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,101, 13050–13055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henson, R. N. A. (2003). Neuroimaging studies of priming.Progress in Neurobiology,70, 53–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1998). Event Files: Evidence for Automatic Integration of Stimulus-Response Episodes.Visual Cognition,5, 183–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B., Pösse, B., &Waszak, F. (2000). Contextualization in perception and action.Psychologica Belgica,40, 227–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I. (2003). The role of external cues for endogenous advance reconfiguration in task switching.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 488–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., &Allport, A. (2006). Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching.Memory & Cognition,34, 433–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch I., Prinz, W. &Allport, A. (2005). Involuntary retrieval in alphabet-arithmetic tasks: Task-mixing and task-switching costs.Psychological Research,69, 252–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization.Psychological Review,95, 492–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms?Cognitive Psychology,22, 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., &Etherton, J. L. (1994). What is learned during automatization? The role of attention in constructing an instance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,20, 1022–1050.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, D. (1998). Long-term positive and negative identity priming: Evidence for episodic retrieval.Memory & Cognition,26, 435–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1423–1442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., &Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on ac-tion: The role of backward inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,129, 4–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (1985). Repetition and the lexicon. In A. W. Ellis (Ed.),Progress in the psychology of language (Vol. 2, pp. 147–195). London: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 134–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neill, W. T. (1997). Episodic retrieval in negative priming and repetition priming.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 1291–3105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, D. (1984). The effects of frequency, repetition and stimulus quality in visual word recognition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36A, 507–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson-Klavehn, A. &Bjork, R. A. (1988). Measures of memory.Annual Review of Psychology,39, 475–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelfsema, P. R., Engel, A. K., Koenig, P., &Singer, W. (1997). Visuomotor integration is associated with zero time-lag synchronization among cortical areas,Nature,385, 157–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. D., &Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,124, 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein J., Meyer, D. E., &Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 763–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scarborough, D. L., Gerard, L., &Cortese, C. (1979). Accessing lexical memory: The transfer of word repetition effects across task and modality.Memory & Cognition,7, 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snodgrass, J. G., &Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 174–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tipper, S. P., Weaver, B., Cameron, S., Brehaut, J. C., &Bastedo, J. (1991). Inhibitory mechanisms of attention in identification and localization tasks: Time course and disruption.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 681–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waszak, F., Hommel, B., &Allport, A. (2004). Semantic generalization of stimulus-task bindings.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 1027–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waszak, F., Hommel, B. &Allport, D. A. (2005). Interaction of task readiness and automatic retrieval in task switching: Negative priming and competitor priming,Memory & Cognition,33, 595–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, D. (1972). Encoding categories of words: An empirical approach to meaning.Psychological Review,77, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, S. P., &Murray, E. A. (1999). Role of the hippocampal system in conditional motor learning: mapping antecedents to action.Hippocampus,9, 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, G., &Allport, A. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs.”Psychological Research,63, 212–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, N. &Monsell, S. (2003). The effects of recent practice on task switching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 919–936.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire Psychologie de la Perception, CNRS and Université Paris Descartes, Centre Biomédicale des Saints Pères, 45 rue des Sts Pères, 75270, Paris cedex 06, France

    Florian Waszak

  2. Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany

    Florian Waszak

  3. Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Bernhard Hommel

Authors
  1. Florian Waszak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bernhard Hommel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florian Waszak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Waszak, F., Hommel, B. The costs and benefits of cross-task priming. Memory & Cognition 35, 1175–1186 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193487

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193487

Keywords

Search

Navigation