Abstract
Inhibition of abandoned tasks in task switching can be inferred when a worse performance is found withn− 2 task repetitions (ABA sequences) than with nonrepetitions (CBA sequences). Recent evidence has shown that this inhibition effect decreases with long intertrial intervals (i.e., response-cue intervals, RCIs). Two alternatives have been proposed to account for this decrease. One alternative attributes the observed decrease to the decay of inhibition itself. The other alternative proposes that decay of the activation of competing tasks reduces the interference and leads to less inhibition. To decide between these alternatives, we manipulated RCI trialwise. The results favor the decay-of-activation account as an explanation for the decreased inhibition effect. This links the amount of inhibition to the activation level of the competing tasks, whereas evidence for the decay of inhibition remains weak.
Article PDF
References
Allport, D., 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., &Gray, W. D. (2002). Forgetting to remember: The functional relationship of decay and interference.Psychological Science,13, 27–33.
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., &Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control.Psychological Review,108, 624–652.
Fox, E. (1995). Negative priming from ignored distractors in visual selection: A review.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 145–173.
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.
Klein, R. (2000). Inhibition of return.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4, 138–147.
Koch, I. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 1474–1486.
Koch, I., Gade, M., &Philipp, A. M. (2004). Inhibition of response mode in task switching.Experimental Psychology,51, 52–58.
Mayr, U. (2002). Inhibition of action rules.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 93–99.
Mayr, U., &Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,129, 4–26.
Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., &Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching.Cognitive Psychology,41, 211–253.
Norman, W., &Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.),Consciousness and selfregulation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum.
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.
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.
Tipper, S. P. (2001). Does negative priming reflect inhibitory mechanisms? A review and integration of conflicting views.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,54A, 321–343.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gade, M., Koch, I. Linking inhibition to activation in the control of task sequences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12, 530–534 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193800
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193800