Abstract
Task switching research has revealed that task changes lead to a performance switch cost. The present study focuses on the organization of task components in the task set. Three different views of task set organization have been distinguished and evidence in favor of each of these has been reported in the literature. In four experiments, we orthogonally varied the categorization task (magnitude and parity) and the stimulus dimension on which the categorization was to be made. Experiments 1, 2, and 4 used Stroop-like number stimuli, whereas Experiment 3 used global—local stimuli to define the stimulus dimension. In Experiments 2–4, the cue—stimulus interval was also varied. The findings showed that a change of any component resulted in a cost, without any reliable difference in the size of these costs. These results are consistent with the flat view on task-set organization, which assumes that the task set binds all elements in an unstructured representation, which is completely reconfigured each time a change to the task set is required. The implications of these findings are discussed in relation to other findings and the different views on task-set organization.
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 nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Altmann, E. M. (2004). Advance preparation in task switching: What work is being done? Psychological Science, 15, 616–622.
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396.
Dixon, P., & Just, M. A. (1986). A chronometric analysis of strategy preparation in choice reactions. Memory & Cognition, 14, 488–500.
Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 331–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hübner, R., Futterer, T., & Steinhauser, M. (2001). On attentional control as a source of residual shift costs: Evidence from two-component task shifts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 640–653.
Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 14, 1–81.
Kleinsorge, T. (2004). Hierarchical switching with two types of judgment and two stimulus dimensions. Experimental Psychology, 51, 145–149.
Kleinsorge, T., & Heuer, H. (1999). Hierarchical switching in a multidimensional task space. Psychological Research, 62, 300–312.
Kleinsorge, T., Heuer, H., & Schmidtke, V. (2001). Task-set reconfiguration with binary and three-valued task dimensions. Psychological Research, 65, 192–201.
Kleinsorge, T., Heuer, H., & Schmidtke, V. (2002). Processes of taskset reconfiguration: Switching operations and implementation operations. Acta Psychologica, 111, 1–28.
Kleinsorge, T., Heuer, H., & Schmidtke, V. (2004). Assembling a task space: Global determination of local shift costs. Psychological Research, 68, 31–40.
Liefooghe, B., Christiaens, E., & Vandierendonck, A. (2008). Does the composition of the cue information influence the representation of the task-set components in task switching? Manuscript in preparation.
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.
Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 832–840.
Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.
Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (2003). Subitizing and similarity: Toward a pattern-matching theory of enumeration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 676–682.
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, 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). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234–249.
Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 32, 493–516.
Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: Precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353–383.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.
Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2004). The costs of changing the representation of action: Response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 566–582.
Spector, A., & Biederman, I. (1976). Mental set and mental shift revisited. American Journal of Psychology, 89, 669–679.
Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2005). Mixing costs in task shifting reflect sequential processing stages in a multicomponent task. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1484–1494.
Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2007). Automatic activation of taskrelated representations in task shifting. Memory & Cognition, 35, 138–155.
Stevens, M., Lammertyn, J., Verbruggen, F., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Tscope: A C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS Windows platform. Behavior Research Methods, 38, 280–286.
Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 89–103.
Trick, L. N. (2005). The role of working memory in spatial enumeration: Patterns of selective interference in subitizing and counting. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 675–681.
Trick, L. N., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1994). Why are large and small numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision. Psychological Review, 101, 80–102.
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.
Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2004). Semantic generalization of stimulus—task bindings. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1027–1033.
Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2005). Interaction of task readiness and automatic retrieval in task switching: Negative priming and competitor priming. Memory & Cognition, 33, 595–610.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The research reported in this article was supported by Grant No. G0010.05 of the Research Fund—Flanders to A.V.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vandierendonck, A., Christiaens, E. & Liefooghe, B. On the representation of task information in task switching: Evidence from task and dimension switching. Memory & Cognition 36, 1248–1261 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.7.1248
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.7.1248