Abstract
Reaction time is typically longer on trials on which the task changes. Thisswitch cost is reduced by the opportunity to prepare for the change before the stimulus onset, but there remains aresidual cost that resists reduction by further opportunity for preparation. De Jong (2000) proposed a model for evaluating the contribution to the residual cost of (1) failure to achieve endogenous task-set reconfiguration on a proportion of trials, and (2) limitations to the completeness of reconfiguration attainable by endogenous means. We report good fits of the model to the data from one previous and one new task-switching experiment, suggesting that the residual switch cost may indeed be attributable to a probabilistic failure to complete advance preparation. But strong incentives for preparation only marginally increased the estimated preparation probability, suggesting some intrinsic limitation to the ability to achieve endogenous preparation for a task switch on every trial.
Article PDF
References
Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., &Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitsch (Eds.),Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
Allport, [D.] A., &Wylie, G. (2000). Task-switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 35–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
De Jong, R. (2001). Adult age differences in goal activation and goal maintenance.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,13, 71–89.
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. 331–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Meuter, R. F. I., &Allport, [D.] A. (1999). Bilingual languageswitching and naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection.Journal of Memory & Language,40, 25–40.
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.
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.
Wylie, G., &Allport, [D.] A. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs.”Psychological Research,63, 212–233.
Yantis, S., Meyer, D. E., &Smith, J. E. K. (1991). Analyses of multinomial mixture distributions: New tests for stochastic models of cognition and action.Psychological Bulletin,110, 350–374.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nieuwenhuis, S., Monsell, S. Residual costs in task switching: Testing the failure-to-engage hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9, 86–92 (2002). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196259
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196259