Abstract
A task switch typically leads to worse performance than a repetition does. This shift cost can be reduced with sufficient task preparation time, but a residual cost usually remains. We propose that a large part of this residual cost is caused by an activation bias produced by response selection processes in the preceding trial. In our experiments, we manipulated response selection requirements using a go/no-go methodology. The residual shift cost disappeared after no-go trials, suggesting that response selection is crucial to establish an activation bias for the current category-response rules and that this bias persists into the next trial. A comparison with a go-only group confirmed this analysis by revealing no differences in preparatory strategy due to the inclusion of no-go trials. In addition, no-go trials had no significant effects on subsequent trials in a single-task experiment, suggesting that no-go trials are not coded as a task different from go trials and that there is no inhibition of the prepared task in a no-go trial. We thus conclude that a persisting activation bias of response rules plays a major role in task switching.
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, Bradford Books.
Allport, [D.] A., &Wylie, G. (1999). Task-switching: Positive and negative priming of task-set. In G. W. Humphreys, J. Duncan, & A. M. Treisman (Eds.),Attention, space, and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 273–296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Band, G. P. H., &van Boxtel, G. J. M. (1999). Inhibitory motor control in stop paradigms: Review and reinterpretation of neural mechanisms.Acta Psychologica,101, 179–211.
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., &Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control.Psychological Review,108, 624–652.
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, Bradford Books.
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.
Falkenstein, M., Hoormann, J., &Hohnsbein, J. (1999). ERP components in go/nogo tasks and their relation to inhibition.Acta Psychologica,101, 267–291.
Hoffmann, J., Kiesel, A., &Sebald, A. (2003). Task switches under go/nogo conditions and the decomposition of switch costs.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,15, 101–128.
Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift.Archives of Psychology (Whole No. 89).
Kleinsorge, T., Gajewski, P. D., &Heuer, H. (2005). Task sets under reconstruction: Effects of partially incorrect precues.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,58A, 521–546.
Koch, I. (2003). The role of external cues for endogenous advance reconfiguration in task switching.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 488–492.
Los, S. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials.Acta Psychologica, 94, 145–188.
Los, S. A., &van den Heuvel, C. E. (2001). Intentional and unintentional contributions to nonspecific preparation during reaction time foreperiods.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 370–386.
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. (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.
Niemi, P., &Näätänen, R. (1981). Foreperiod and simple reaction time.Psychological Bulletin,89, 133–162.
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.
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.
Smid, H. G. O. M., Fiedler, R., &Heinze, H.-J. (2000). An electrophysiological study of the insertion of overt response choice.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1053–1071.
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.
Van Duren, L. L., &Sanders, A. F. (1988). On the robustness of the additive factors stage structure in blocked and mixed choice reaction designs.Acta Psychologica,69, 83–94.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
This research was funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Grant KO 2045/4-1 to the first author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koch, I., Philipp, A.M. Effects of response selection on the task repetition benefit in task switching. Mem Cogn 33, 624–634 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195329
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195329