Abstract
Participants switched frequently between high/low and odd/even classification of a digit. The interval between a task cue and the next digit varied between blocks. In Experiment 1, the task switched predictably every two, four, or eight trials. In Experiment 2, switching predictably every four trials was compared with random switching. With predictable switching, the cost was limited to the first trial of a run. Random switching produced a more gradual approach to asymptotic performance. After one performance, control processes attenuate the resulting change in task-set bias if a further switch is likely, but this strategic modulation is soon overwhelmed by task-set priming through further performances. Preparation reduced switch costs but not interference from the irrelevant attribute: Control of interference appears to be reactive, not proactive. Switch costs did not increase with run length, suggesting that retrieval of the task set last associated with the stimulus did not contribute to switch costs.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
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.
Allport, [D.] A., &Wylie, G. [D.] (2000). Task-switching, stimulus-response bindings and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 35–70). 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.
De Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
De Jong, R., Berendsen, E., &Cools, R. (1999). Goal neglect and inhibitory limitations: Dissociable causes of interference effects in conflict situations.Acta Psychologica,101, 379–394.
Gehring, W. J., Goss, B., Coles, M. G. H., Meyer, D. E., &Donchin, E. (1993). A neural system for error detection and compensation.Psychological Science,4, 385–390.
Gilbert, S. J., &Shallice, T. (2002). Task-switching: A PDP model.Cognitive Psychology,44, 297–337.
Gopher, D., Armony, L., &Greenshpan, Y. (2000). Switching tasks and attention policies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,129, 308–339.
Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching. In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 331–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift.Archives of Psychology, No. 89.
Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgement of representativeness.Cognitive Psychology,3, 430–454.
Keele, S. W., &Rafal, R. (2000). Deficits of task-set in patients with left prefrontal cortex lesions. In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 627–651). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kieras, D. E., Meyer, D. E., Ballas, J. A., &Lauber, E. J. (2000). Modern computational perspectives on executive mental processes and cognitive control: Where to from here? In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 681–712). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Koch, I. (in press). The role of external cues for endogenous advance reconfiguration in task switching. Psychological Bulletin & Review.
Logan, G. D., &Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations.Psychological Review,108, 393–434.
MacDonald, A. W., Cohen, J. D., Stenger, A. V., &Carter, C. S. (2000). Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control.Science,288, 1835–1838.
Mayr, U. (2001). Age differences in the selection of mental sets: The role of inhibition, stimulus ambiguity, and response-set overlap.Psychology & Aging,16, 96–109.
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.
Mayr, U., &Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1124–1140.
Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1423–1442.
Meiran, N. (2000). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching.Psychological Research,63, 234–249.
Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., &Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching.Cognitive Psychology,41, 211–253.
Meuter, R. F. I., &Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language-switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection.Journal of Memory & Language,40, 25–40.
Monsell, S., &Driver, J. S. (Eds.) (2000).Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Monsell, S., Yeung, N., &Azuma, R. (2000). Reconfiguration of task-set: Is it easier to switch to the weaker task?Psychological Research,63, 250–264.
Nieuwenhuis, S., &Monsell, S. (2002). Residual costs in task switching: Testing the “failure to engage” hypothesis.Psychological Bulletin & Review,9, 86–92.
Norman, D. A., &Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.),Consciousness and self-regulation (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum.
Rogers, R. D., &Monsell, S. (1995). The costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,124, 207–231.
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., &Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 763–797.
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.
Salthouse, T. A., Fristoe, N., McGuthry, K. E., &Hambrick, D. Z. (1998). Relation of task switching to speed, age, and fluid intelligence.Psychology & Aging,13, 445–461.
Shaffer, L. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping.Journal of Experimental Psychology,70, 284–288.
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.
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., &Milan, E. G. (2001). A more complete task-set reconfiguration in random than in predictable switch.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,54A, 785–803.
Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (in press). Task switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic bindings in task shift costs.Cognitive Psychology.
Wylie, G., &Allport, A. [D.] (2000). Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs.”Psychological Research,63, 212–233.
Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (in press). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: The role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Experiment 1 was conducted as an undergraduate research project by P.S. and H.W. Experiment 2 was run with the assistance, gratefully acknowledged, of Sam Abdallah. The data in Figure 2 were depicted (analyzed with slightly different exclusion criteria) in a review by Monsell, Yeung, and Azuma (2000).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Monsell, S., Sumner, P. & Waters, H. Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches. Memory & Cognition 31, 327–342 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194391
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194391