Abstract
Some researchers argue that task switching involves task-set reconfiguration-that is, changing the existing task set to perform a different task. Although this idea is intriguing, it is often unclear what is reconfigured and which processes are involved in reconfiguration. We addressed these issues by defining task sets, identifying differences between them, and obtaining evidence that was diagnostic of reconfiguration. In two experiments, subjects performed relative judgment tasks that involved comparing a target with a reference point that repeated or switched across trials. The task was the same on every trial, but the task set was not, because a task-set parameter-the reference point-had to be changed. Target-reference point distance effects that changed with the reference point provided diagnostic evidence that reconfiguration occurred, and this reconfiguration led to switch costs. We discuss how our approach can be generalized to define reconfiguration more clearly in other task-switching situations. nt|mis|This research was supported by Grants BCS 0133202 and BCS 0446806 from the National Science Foundation to G.D.L.
Article PDF
References
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.
Banks, W. P. (1977). Encoding and processing of symbolic information in comparative judgments. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 11, pp. 101–159). New York: Academic Press.
Buckley, P. B., &Gillman, C. B. (1974). Comparisons of digits and dot patterns.Journal of Experimental Psychology,103, 1131–1136.
Dehaene, S. (1989). The psychophysics of numerical comparison: A reexamination of apparently incompatible data.Perception & Psychophysics,45, 557–566.
Fias, W., &Fischer, M. H. (2005). Spatial representation of numbers. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.),Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp. 43–54). New York: Psychology Press.
Holyoak, K. J. (1978). Comparative judgments with numerical reference points.Cognitive Psychology,10, 203–243.
Link, S. W. (1975). The relative judgment theory of two choice response time.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,12, 114–135.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization.Psychological Review,95, 492–527.
Logan, G. D. (2005). The time it takes to switch attention.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,12, 647–653.
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., &Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations.Psychological Review,108, 393–434.
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.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 134–140.
Monsell, S., &Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm mea sure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,32, 493–516.
Moyer, R. S., &Dumais, S. T. (1978). Mental comparison. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 12, pp. 117–155). New York: Academic Press.
Poltrock, S. E. (1989). A random walk model of digit comparison.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,33, 131–162.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schneider, D.W., Logan, G.D. Defining task-set reconfiguration: The case of reference point switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 118–125 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194038
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194038