Abstract
Most studies of task-set switching rely on cuing paradigms, in which external cues indicate the upcoming task. The present study used an entirely predictable task sequence in a variant of the alternating-runs paradigm of Rogers and Monsell (1995). Preparation effects with purely internal memory cues were compared with those in another experimental group with additional external cues presented prior to the stimulus. External cues led to strongly reduced shift costs with prolonged preparation time. However, this effect was much smaller with internal cues only. To account for this differential effect of preparation time as a function of cue type, it is suggested that internal cues select the next task set, which is sufficient to perform the task. External cues additionally facilitate preparatory retrieval of task-specific stimulus-response rules. This account may also explain why incidental task-sequence learning based on internal cues did not reduce shift costs.
Article PDF
References
Allport, 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.
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.
De Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fagot, C. (1994).Chronometric investigations of task switching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
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. Driver (Eds.),Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 333–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Heuer, H., Schmidtke, V., Kleinsorge, T. (2001). Implicit learning of sequences of tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 967–983.
Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift.Archives of Psychology (Whole No. 89).
Koch, I. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 1474–1486.
Koch, I., Allport, A. (2003).Cue-based and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Kray, J., Lindenberger, U. (2000). Adult age differences in task switching.Psychology & Aging,15, 126–147.
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.
Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching.Cognitive Psychology,41, 211–253.
Monsell, S. (1996). Control of mental processes. In V. Bruce (Ed.),Unsolved mysteries of the mind: Tutorial essays in cognition (pp. 93–148). Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum.
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.
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.
Spector, A., Biederman, I. (1976). Mental set and mental shift revisited.American Journal of Psychology,89, 669–679.
Sudevan, P., Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,13, 89–103.
Waszak, F., Hommel, B., Allport, A. (in press). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic S-R bindings in task-shift costs.Cognitive Psychology.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koch, I. The role of external cues for endogenous advance reconfiguration in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10, 488–492 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196511
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196511