Abstract
In this article, the authors investigate the assumption that preparation while switching between cognitive tasks is dynamically adjusted to the current task demands. Performance in high-shift blocks (75% shifts) was compared with performance in high-repetition blocks (75% repetitions). This probability information was given either at the beginning of a block (global condition) or by specific probability cues before every trial (local condition). The authors report strong preparation effects (activation of the probable task and inhibition of the improbable task) in high-shift blocks, especially when specific probability cues were provided. In high-repetition blocks, however, the preparation effects were less pronounced. The results support the assumption that preparation is dynamically adjusted to the expected task requirements.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
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.
Altmann, E. M. (2004). The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA.Memory & Cognition,32, 153–163.
De Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., &Kluwe, R. H. (2002). Preparatory processes in the task switching paradigm: Evidence from the use of probability cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 468–483.
Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 331–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Koch, I. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 967–983.
Koch, I. (2005). Sequential task predictability in task switching.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,12, 107–112.
MacDonald, A. W., III,Cohen, J. D., Stenger, V. A., &Carter, C. S. (2000). Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control.Science,288, 1835–1838.
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. (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.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 134–140.
Rogers, R. D., &Monsell, S. (1995). The cost of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,124, 207–231.
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: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 1404–1419.
Sohn, M.-H., &Anderson, J. R. (2003). Stimulus-related priming during task switching.Memory & Cognition,31, 775–780.
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.
Tornay, F. J., &Milán, E. G. (2001). A more complete task-set reconfiguration in random than in predictable task switch.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,54A, 785–803.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dreisbach, G., Haider, H. Preparatory adjustment of cognitive control in the task switching paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13, 334–338 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193853
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193853