Abstract
The switch cost asymmetry (i.e., larger costs when switching from a nondominant into a dominant task than vice versa) has been explained in terms of the trial-to-trial carryover of activation levels required for the dominant versus the nondominant task. However, there is an open question about whether an actual switch in task is in fact necessary to obtain a “selection” cost asymmetry. In Experiments 1 and 2, we modified an alternatingruns paradigm to include either long or short response-to-stimulus intervals (RSIs) after each pair of trials (i.e., AA-AA-BB-BB), thereby inducing selection costs not only at the point of a task switch (i.e., AA-BB), but also between same-task pairs (i.e., AA-AA). Using spatially compatible versus incompatible response rules (Experiment 1) and Stroop word versus color naming (Experiment 2), we found asymmetric effects not only at task-change transitions, but also at task-repeat transitions when the RSI was long (presumably inducing frequent losses of set). In Experiments 3A and 3B, a cost asymmetry for long RSIs was obtained even when competing tasks were separated into alternating single task blocks, but not when the tasks were compared in a betweensubjects design. This general pattern cannot be explained by activation carryover models, but is consistent with the idea that the asymmetry arises as a result of interference from long-term memory traces.
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). 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.
Altmann, E. M. (2002). Functional decay of memory for tasks. Psychological Research, 66, 287–297.
Craik, F. I. M., Govoni, R., Naveh-Benjamin, M., & Anderson, N. D. (1996). The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 159–180.
Erlebacher, A. (1977). Design and analysis of experiments contrasting the within- and between-subjects manipulation of the independent variable. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 212–219.
Gilbert, S. J., & Shallice, T. (2002). Task switching: A PDP model. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 297–337.
Gopher, D., Armony, L., & Greenshpan, Y. (2000). Switching tasks and attention policies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 308–339.
Gottsdanker, R. (1979). A psychological refractory period or an unprepared period? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 5, 208–215.
Hazy, T. E., Frank, M. J., & O’Reilly, R. C. (2006). Banishing the homunculus: Making working memory work. Neuroscience, 139, 105–118.
Lien, M.-C., & Ruthruff, E. (2004). Task switching in a hierarchical task structure: Evidence for the fragility of the task repetition benefit. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 697–713.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.
Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1–35.
Mayr, U., & Bryck, R. L. (2005). Sticky rules: Integration between abstract rules and specific actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 337–350.
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.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.
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.
Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: The role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 455–469.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bryck, R.L., Mayr, U. Task selection cost asymmetry without task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 128–134 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.128
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.1.128