Abstract
Shifting from one task to another is associated with significant costs. Recently, it has been questioned whether the mere preparation for a forthcoming task, without the task’s actually being executed, is sufficient to establish a new task set that results in shift costs when the execution of a task other than the prepared task is required. In a go/no-go study, it is shown that the mere preparation for a task is sufficient to produce shift costs, but only under conditions that encourage participants to engage in advance preparation for a precued task despite the possibility that the execution of this task will not always be required, because of occasional no-go trials. In addition, considerable reductions of shift costs after go trials could be observed under these conditions. When such a motivating context was not provided, only negligible shift costs were observed after a no-go trial, indicating that no task-set configuration had taken place without the need to perform the task. Furthermore, under these conditions, prolonging the preparation interval resulted in reaction time benefits that were similar for task shifts and repetitions, again indicating that no active task-set configuration took place.
Article PDF
References
Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A. &Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting attentional 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.
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.
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.
De Jong, R., Coles, M. G. H., &Logan, G. D. (1995). Strategies and mechanisms in nonselective and selective inhibitory motor control.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 498–511.
Kleinsorge, T., Gajewski, P . D., & Heuer, H. (in press). Task sets under reconstruction: Effects of partially incorrect precues.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Koch, I., & P hilipp, A. M. (2003).Effects of response selection on the task-repetition benefit in task switching. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., &Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching.Cognitive Psychology,41, 211–253.
Nieuwenhuis, S., &Monsell, S. (2002). Residual costs in task switching: Testing the failure-to-engage hypothesis.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 86–92.
Rogers, R. D., &Monsell, S. (1995). The 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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research reported in this article was supported by Grant KI 1205/2-1 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kleinsorge, T., Gajewski, P.D. Preparation for a forthcoming task is sufficient to produce subsequent shift costs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11, 302–306 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196574
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196574