Abstract
Two converging tests were used to determine whether people proactively inhibit recently performed tasks when switching to new tasks. A task-cuing paradigm was used. In each trial, the relevant stimulus was accompanied by flankers belonging either to the task performed on the immediately preceding trial (lag 1) or a more distant trial (lag 21). If the just-performed task is inhibited when switching to another task, and this inhibition declines across trials, then flanker interference should be smaller with lag 1 flankers than with lag 21 flankers. Experiment 1, following the methods of Hübner, Dreisbach, Haider, and Kluwe (2003), failed to confirm this prediction. The prediction was confirmed in Experiment 2, however, using a design modified to provide greater incentives for task-set inhibition. The results provide evidence that inhibition can be applied proactively, to reduce the ability of an abandoned task to interfere with the performance of other tasks.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Allport, A., Styles, E. A., &Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà and M. Moscovitch (Eds.),Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Arbuthnott, K. D. (2005). The influence of cue type on backward inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,31, 1030–1042.
De Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gade, M., &Koch, I. (2005). Linking inhibition to activation in the control of task sequences.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,12, 530–534.
Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 331–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hübner, R., 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.
Lien, M.-C., Ruthruff, E., &Kuhns, D. (2006). On the difficulty of task switching: Assessing the role of task-set inhibition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,13, 530–535.
Lien, M.-C., Ruthruff, E., Remington, R. W., &Johnston, J. C. (2005). On the limits of advance preparation for a task switch: Do people prepare all the task some of the time or some of the task all the time?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,31, 299–315.
Lien, M.-C., Schweickert, R., &Proctor, R. W. (2003). Task-switching and response correspondence in the psychological refractory period paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 692–712.
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.
Philipp, A. M., &Koch, I. (2006). Task inhibition and task repetition in task switching.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,18, 624–639.
Rogers, R. D., &Monsell, S. (1995). Costs 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: Human Perception & Performance,27, 1404–1419.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by funding from the Oregon Space Grant Consortium Graduate Fellowship to D.K. and the Oregon State University Research Incentive Programs to M.-C.L.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kuhns, D., Lien, MC. & Ruthruff, E. Proactive versus reactive task-set inhibition: Evidence from flanker compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14, 977–983 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194131
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194131