Abstract
In previous studies of task switching and of the right-left prevalence effect, researchers have used a procedure in which the stimulus on each trial occurs in one of four quadrants, and responses are made by pressing one of two diagonally arranged response keys. Across these studies, discrepant effects of cuing interval have been reported. These discrepancies need clarification because cue-based preparation effects are frequently interpreted as reflecting cognitive control processes. In Experiment 1, we compared performance with display formats used by Meiran (1996; Meiran, Chorev, & Sapir, 2000; small display, cues located at sides of quadrants and displayed until response) to study task switching and by Proctor and colleagues (Proctor, Koch, & Vu, 2006; large display, cues located at center of display and shown until target onset) to study right-left prevalence. We found a decrease in taskswitch cost with increasing cuing interval with the Meiran display, but not with the Proctor display, but the right-left prevalence effect was of similar size for the two display formats and was relatively unaffected by cuing interval. To determine the basis of the discrepant task-switch results, we used small and large displays in Experiments 2 and 3, respectively, with cue type and cue offset varied. With the side cues, the task-switch cost decreased in all cases at the longer cuing interval, but with the centered cues, it decreased only when the display size was small. Thus, the effects of cuing interval on switch costs are sensitive to variations of display characteristics, whereas cuing interval and display characteristics have little influence on the right-left prevalence effect, suggesting that prevalence effect is due to processes that are independent from those producing the switch cost.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adam, J. J., Hommel, B., & Umiltà, C. (2003). Preparing for perception and action (I): The role of grouping in the response-cuing paradigm. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 302–358.
Altmann, E. M. (2004). The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA. Memory & Cognition, 32, 153–163.
Altmann, E. M. (2006). Task switching is not cue switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 1016–1022.
Funes, M. J., Lupiáñez, J., & Milliken, B. (2007). Separate mechanisms recruited by exogenous and endogenous spatial cues: Evidence from a spatial Stroop paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 348–362.
Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Cue-task associations in task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 762–769.
Gotler, A., & Meiran, N. (2001). Cognitive processes underlying a frontally mediated component of task switching. Brain & Cognition, 47, 142–146.
Hommel, B. (1996). No prevalence of right-left over top-bottom spatial codes. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 102–110.
Koch, I. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 1474–1486.
Koch, I. (2005). Sequential task predictability in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 107–112.
Koch, I., & Allport, A. (2006). Cue-based preparation and stimulusbased priming of tasks in task switching. Memory & Cognition, 34, 433–444.
Koch, I., Ruge, H., Brass, M., Rubin, O., Meiran, N., & Prinz, W. (2003). Equivalence of cognitive processes in brain imaging and behavioral studies: Evidence from task switching. NeuroImage, 20, 572–577.
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.
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, 362–372.
Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1423–1442.
Meiran, N. (2000). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 377–399). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Meiran, N., & Chorev, Z. (2005). Phasic alertness and the residual task-switching cost. Experimental Psychology, 52, 109–124.
Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211–253.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.
Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1984). Right-left prevalence in spatial compatibility. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 333–343.
Nicoletti, R., & Umiltà, C. (1985). Responding with hand and foot: The right/left prevalence in spatial compatibility is still present. Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 211–216.
Nishimura, A., & Yokosawa, K. (2007). Preparation for horizontal or vertical dimensions affects the right-left prevalence effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 1242–1252.
Posner, M. I., Klein, R., Summers, J., & Buggie, S. (1973). On the selection of signals. Memory & Cognition, 1, 2–12.
Proctor, R. W., Koch, I., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006). Effects of precuing horizontal and vertical dimensions on right-left prevalence. Memory & Cognition, 34, 949–958.
Proctor, R. W., Vu, K.-P. L., & Nicoletti, R. (2003). Does right-left prevalence occur for the Simon effect? Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 1318–1329.
Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umiltà, C. (1987). Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favor of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsychologia, 25, 31–40.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.
Rubichi, S., Vu, K.-P. L., Nicoletti, R., & Proctor, R. W. (2006). Spatial coding in two dimensions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 201–216.
Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Modeling task switching without switching tasks: A short-term priming account of explicitly cued performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 343–367.
Steinhauser, M., Maier, M., & Hübner, R. (2007). Cognitive control under stress: How stress affects strategies of task-set reconfiguration. Psychological Science, 18, 540–545.
Stoffer, T. H., & Umiltà, C. (1997). Spatial stimulus coding and the focus of attention in S-R compatibility and the Simon effect. In B. Hommel & W. Prinz (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 181–208). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., Vandierendonck, A., & Demanet, J. (2007). Short cue presentations encourage advance task preparation: A recipe to diminish the residual switch cost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 342–356.
Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2001). Determinants of the right-left and top-bottom prevalence for two-dimensional spatial compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 27, 813–828.
Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2002). The prevalence effect in two-dimensional stimulus-response compatibility is a function of the relative salience of dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 815–828.
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
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Proctor, R.W., Koch, I., Vu, KP.L. et al. Influence of display type and cue format on task-cuing effects: Dissociating switch cost and right-left prevalence effects. Memory & Cognition 36, 998–1012 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.5.998
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.5.998