Abstract
Many studies of task switching have found that a prolonged preparation time reduces switch costs. An alternative manipulation of task preparation is based on sequential task predictability, rather than preparation time. In Experiments 1 and 2 of the present study, participants performed explicitly instructed task sequences (i.e., AABB) and were then transferred to a random sequence. The observed benefit of predictability-based task preparation was not switch specific. In Experiment 3, the participants changed from random to predictable tasks. The observed predictability benefit again was not switch specific. The data thus suggest that task switching does not necessarily require a switch-specific reconfiguration process. Rather, task-specific control processes may be needed in both task switches and repetitions.
Article PDF
References
Allport, A., &Wylie, G. (2000). Selection-for-action in competing (Stroop) tasks: “Task-switching,” stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.),Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 35–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Altmann, E. M. (2004). The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA.Memory & Cognition,32, 153–163.
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 Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of California, San Diego.
Gotler, A., Meiran, N., &Tzelgov, J. (2003). Nonintentional task set activation: Evidence from implicit task sequence learning.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 890–896.
Heuer, H., Schmidtke, V., &Kleinsorge, T. (2001). Implicit learning of sequences of tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 967–983.
Koch, I. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 1474–1486.
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.
Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1423–1442.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 134–140.
Monsell, S., Sumner, P., &Waters, H. (2003). Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches.Memory & Cognition,31, 327–342.
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., 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.
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., &Carlson, R. A. (2000). Effects of repetition and foreknowledge in task-set reconfiguration.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 1445–1460.
Tornay, F. J., &Milàn, E. G. (2001). A more complete task-set reconfiguration in random than in predictable task switch.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,54A, 785–803.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koch, I. Sequential task predictability in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12, 107–112 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196354
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196354