Abstract
Recent task-switching work in which paper-and-pencil administered single-task lists were compared with task-alternation lists has demonstrated large increases in task-switch costs with concurrent articulatory suppression (AS), implicating a crucial role for verbalization during switching (Baddeley, Chincotta, & Adlam, 2001; Emerson & Miyake, 2003). Experiment 1 replicated this result, using computerized assessment, albeit with much smaller effect sizes than in the original reports. In Experiment 2, AS interference was reduced when a sequential cue (spatial location) that indicated the current position in the sequence of task alternations was given. Finally, in Experiment 3, switch trials and no-switch trials were compared within a block of alternating runs of two tasks. Again, AS interference was obtained mainly when the endogenous sequencing demand was high, and it was comparable for no-switch and switch trials. These results suggest that verbalization may be critical for endogenous maintenance and updating of a sequential plan, rather than exclusively for the actual switching process.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baddeley, A. [D.], Chincotta, D., &Adlam, A. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: Evidence from task switching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 641–657.
Baddeley, A. D., Lewis, V. J., &Vallar, G. (1984). Exploring the articulatory loop.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,36A, 233–252.
Bates, T. C., &D’Oliveiro, L. (2003). PsyScript: A Macintosh application for scripting experiments.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,35, 565–576.
Dehaene, S., Kerszberg, M., &Changeux, J.-P. (2001). A neuronal model of a global workspace in effortful cognitive tasks. In P. C. Marijuán (Ed.),Cajal and consciousness: Scientific approaches to consciousness on the centennial of Ramón y Cajal’s Textura (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 929, pp. 152–165). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Emerson, M. J., &Miyake, A. (2003). The role of inner speech in task switching: A dual-task investigation.Journal of Memory & Language,48, 148–168.
Fagot, C. (1995).Chronometric investigations of task switching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
Gehring, W. J., Bryck, R. L., Jonides, J., Albin, R. L., &Badre, D. (2003). The mind’s eye, looking inward? In search of executive control in internal attention shifting.Psychophysiology,40, 572–585.
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.
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. 331–356). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift.Archives of Psychology,14, 5–81.
Kray, J., Eber, J., &Lindenberger, U. (2004). Age differences in executive functioning across the lifespan: The role of verbalization in task preparation.Acta Psychologica,115, 143–165.
Kray, J., &Lindenberger, U. (2000). Adult age differences in task switching.Psychology & Aging,15, 126–147.
Luria, R., &Meiran, N. (2003). Online order control in the psychological refractory period paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 556–574.
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. (2003). Towards principles of executive control: How mental sets are selected. In R. H. Kluwe, G. Lüer, & F. Rösler (Eds.),Principles of learning and memory (pp. 223–240). Basel: Birkhäuser.
Mayr, U., &Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1124–1140.
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.
Meiran, N. (2001). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching.Psychological Research,63, 234–249.
Miyake, A., Emerson, M. J., Padilla, F., &Ahn, J. (2004). Inner speech as a retrieval aid for task goals: The effects of cue type and articulatory suppression in the random task cuing paradigm.Acta Psychologica,115, 123–142.
Rogers, R. D., &Monsell, S. (1995). 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.
Saeki, E., &Saito, S. (2004a). Effect of articulatory suppression on task-switching performance: Implications for models of working memory.Memory,12, 257–271.
Saeki, E., &Saito, S. (2004b). The role of the phonological loop in task-switching performance: The effect of articulatory suppression in the alternating runs paradigm.Psychologia,47, 35–43.
Spector, A., &Biederman, I. (1976). Mental set and mental shift revisited.American Journal of Psychology,89, 669–679.
Vygotsky, L. S., &Luria, A. R. (1994). Tool and symbol in child development. In R. Ovan der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.),The Vygotsky reader (pp. 99–174). Oxford: Blackwell.
Zbrodoff, N. J., &Logan, G. D. (1986). On the autonomy of mental processes: A case study of arithmetic.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,115, 118–130.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bryck, R.L., Mayr, U. On the role of verbalization during task set selection: Switching or serial order control?. Mem Cogn 33, 611–623 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195328
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195328