Abstract
A common finding in task-switching studies isswitch preparation (commonly known as the preparation effect), in which a longer interval between task cue and trial stimulus (i.e., a longer stimulus onset asynchrony, or SOA) reduces the cost of switching to a different task. Three experiments link switch preparation to within-subjects manipulations of SOA. In Experiment 1, SOA was randomized within subjects, producing switch preparation that was more pronounced when the SOA switched from the previous trial than when the SOA repeated. In Experiment 2, SOA was blocked within subjects, producing switch preparation but not on the first block of trials. In Experiment 3, SOA was manipulated between subjects with sufficient statistical power to detect switch preparation, but the effect was absent. The results favor an encoding view of cognitive control, but show that any putative switching mechanism reacts lazily when exposed to only one SOA.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allport, A., &Wylie, G. (2000). Task-switching, stimulus-response binding, 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. (2002). Functional decay of memory for tasks.Psychological Research,66, 287–297.
Altmann, E. M., &Gray, W. D. (2002). Forgetting to remember: The functional relationship of decay and interference.Psychological Science,13, 27–33.
Anderson, J. R., &Lebiere, C. (Eds.) (1998).The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Arrington, C. M. (2002).Explorations in task space: Similarity effects on task switching. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Michigan State University.
Arrington, C. M., Altmann, E. M., &Carr, T. H. (2003). Tasks of a feather flock together: Similarity effects in task switching.Memory & Cognition,31, 781–789.
Buck-Gengler, C. J., &Healy, A. F. (2001). Processes underlying long-term repetition priming in digit data entry.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 879–888.
Cohen, J. D. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
D’Amico, E. J., Neilands, T. B., &Zambarano, R. (2001). Power analysis for multivariate and repeated measures analysis: A flexible approach using the SPSS MANOVA procedure.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,33, 479–484.
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. (2001). Adult age differences in goal activation and goal maintenance.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,13, 71–89.
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.
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.
Fagot, C. (1994).Chronometric investigations of task switching. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California.
Garavan, H. (1998). Serial attention within working memory.Memory & Cognition,26, 263–276.
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.
Hahn, S., Andersen, G. J., &Kramer, A. F. (2003). Multidimensional set switching.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 503–509.
Ivry, R. B., &Hazeltine, E. (2000). Task switching in a callosotomy patient and in normal participants: Evidence for response-related sources of interference. In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 401- 423). 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. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 1474–1486.
Koch, I. (2003). The role of external cues for endogenous advance reconfiguration in task switching.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 488–492.
Kramer, A. F., Hahn, S., &Gopher, D. (1999). Task coordination and aging: Explorations of executive control processes in the task switching paradigm.Acta Psychologica,101, 339–378.
Kray, J., &Lindenberger, U. (2000). Adult age differences in task switching.Psychology & Aging,15, 126–147.
Lavie, N. (2000). Selective attention and cognitive control: Dissociating attentional functions through different types of load. In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 175–194). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Loftus, G. R., &Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 476–490.
Logan, G. D. (2003). Executive control of thought and action: In search of the wild homunculus.Current Directions in Psychological Science,12, 45–48.
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.
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. (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. (2000a). 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. 377–399). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Meiran, N. (2000b). 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.
Meiran, N., &Marciano, H. (2002). Limitations in advance task preparation: Switching the relevant stimulus dimension in speeded same-different comparisons.Memory & Cognition,30, 540–550.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 134–140.
Monsell, S., &Driver, J. S. (2000). Banishing the control homunculus. In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Monsell, S., Sumner, P., &Waters, H. (2003). Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches.Memory & Cognition,31, 327–342.
Murphy, K. R., &Myors, B. (1998).Statistical power analysis: A simple and general model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nieuwenhuis, S., &Monsell, S. (2002). Residual costs in task switching: Testing the failure-to-engage hypothesis.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 86–92.
Posner, M. I., &Boies, S. J. (1971). Components of attention.Psychological Review,78, 391–408.
Poulton, E. C. (1982). Influential companions: Effects of one strategy on another in the within-subjects designs of cognitive psychology.Psychological Bulletin,91, 673–690.
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-upfactors.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.
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.
Sohn, M.-H., &Anderson, J. R. (2003). Stimulus related priming during task switching.Memory & Cognition,31, 775–780.
Sohn, M.-H., &Carlson, R. (2000). Effects of repetition and foreknowledge in task-set reconfiguration.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1445–1460.
Stoet, G., &Snyder, L. H. (2003). Executive control and task-switching in monkeys.Neuropsychologia,41, 1357–1364.
Tornay, F. J., &Milan, E. G. (2001). A more complete task-set reconfiguration in random than in predictable task switch.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,54A, 785–803.
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.
Yeung, N., &Monsell, S. (2003). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: The role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 455–469.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported in part by a grant from the Off ice of Naval Research.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Altmann, E.M. The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA. Memory & Cognition 32, 153–163 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195828
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195828