Abstract
Alternating tasks in a sequence of task switches results in impaired performance, relative to switches across three different tasks, an effect known as backward inhibition. Despite the robustness of this effect across task and response variations, backward inhibition is not observed when tasks are uniquely located at different points in space (Arbuthnott, 2005). Three hypotheses about the source of this anomaly were tested. Experiment 1 indicated that perceptually distinct task features other than location did not eliminate backward inhibition. Experiment 2 indicated that when switches across task and location were manipulated independently (i.e., all tasks appeared at all locations), backward inhibition was observed for task switches even when consecutive trials appeared at different spatial locations, ruling out eye movement as the source of the difference. The third experiment indicated that when component tasks involved judgments of spatial location, backward inhibition was observed across unique task—location switches. These results indicate that sequential inhibition is a very flexible mechanism that is sensitive to the amount of interference from previous tasks.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allport, D. 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 non-conscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Arbuthnott, K. D. (2005). The influence of cue type on backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1030–1042.
Arbuthnott, K. D. (in press). Asymmetric switch cost and backward inhibition: Carryover activation and inhibition in switching between tasks of unequal difficulty. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Arbuthnott, K. [D.], & Frank, J. [E.] (2000). Executive control in set switching: Residual switch cost and task-set inhibition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 33–41.
Arbuthnott, K. D., & Woodward, T. S. (2002). The influence of cue— task association and location on switch cost and alternating-switch cost. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 18–29.
Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2005). Linking inhibition to activation in the control of task sequences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 530–534.
Gade, M., & Koch, I. (in press). Cue-independence of task inhibition: Evidence from a 2:1 cue-to-task mapping study. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Hübner, M., Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., & Kluwe, R. H. (2003). Backward inhibition as a means of sequential task-set control: Evidence for reduction of task competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 289–297.
Jersild, A. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 89, 5–82.
Koch, I., Gade, M., & Philipp, A. M. (2004). Inhibition of response mode in task switching. Experimental Psychology, 51, 52–58.
Koch, I., Philipp, A. M., & Gade, M. (2006). Chunking in task sequences modulates task inhibition. Psychological Science, 17, 346–350.
Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing paradigm? 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., & Bryck, R. L. (2007). Outsourcing control to the environment: Effects of stimulus/response locations on task selection. Psychological Research, 71, 107–116.
Mayr, U., & Keele, S. (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.
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, 363–372.
Philipp, A. M., Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Inhibitory processes in language switching: Evidence from switching language-defined response sets. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 395–416.
Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2006). Task inhibition and task repetition in task switching. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 624–639.
Rogers, R., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.
Schneider, D. W. (2007). Task-set inhibition in chunked task sequences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 970–976.
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.
Spector, A., & Biederman, I. (1976). Mental set and mental shift revisited. American Journal of Psychology, 89, 669–679.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arbuthnott, K. The effect of task location and task type on backward inhibition. Memory & Cognition 36, 534–543 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.3.534
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.3.534