Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The surface structure and the deep structure of sequential control: What can we learn from task span switch costs?

  • Brief Reports
  • Published:
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A large component of response time switch costs in the cued task-switching paradigm is linked to cue changes without task changes, suggesting costs might reflect passive priming rather than endogenous control. In contrast, the task span procedure requires subjects to guide task selection via sequences of memorized task cues and therefore may be better suited to reflect endogenous switch processes (Logan, 2004). The present experiments combined the task span procedure with a 2:1 mapping between cues and tasks, allowing separation of cue-switch costs from true task-switch costs. Replicating findings with the cued task-switching paradigm, results showed both substantial cue-switch costs and actual task-switch costs (Experiments 1 and 2) as well as sensitivity of cue-switch costs, but not of task-switch costs, to opportunity for preparation (Experiment 2). Apparently, simple action plans use “surface level” phonological or articulatory codes that contain no task information. These results suggest that the distinction between cue-related and task-related processes is critical no matter whether tasks are cued exogenously or endogenously.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Altmann, E. M. (2006). Task switching is not cue switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 1016–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2004). The cost of a voluntary task switch. Psychological Science, 15, 610–615.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arrington, C. M., Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2007). Separating cue encoding from target processing in the explicit task-cuing procedure: Are there “true” task switch effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 33, 484–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A., Chincotta, D., & Adlam, A. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: Evidence from task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 641–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryck, R. L., & Mayr, U. (2005). On the role of verbalization during task set selection: Switching or serial order control? Memory & Cognition, 33, 611–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, M. J., & Miyake, A. (2003). The role of inner speech in task switching: A dual-task investigation. Journal of Memory & Language, 48, 148–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gotler, A., Meiran, N., & Tzelgov, J. (2003). Nonintentional task set activation: Evidence from implicit task sequence learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 890–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, K., Mayr, U., & Rösler, F. (2008). Is task switching nothing but cue priming? Evidence from ERPs. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 74–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I. (2003). The role of external cues for endogenous advance reconfiguration in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 488–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (2003). Executive control of thought and action: In search of the wild homunculus. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 45–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (2004). Working memory, task switching, and executive control in the task span procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 218–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (2007). What it costs to implement a plan: Plan-level and task-level contributions to switch costs. Memory & Cognition, 35, 591–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2006). Interpreting instructional cues in task switching procedures: The role of mediator retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 32, 347–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U. (2003). Towards principles of executive control: How mental sets are selected. In R. H. Kluwe, G. Luer, & F. Rösler (Eds.), Principles of learning and memory (pp. 223–240). Basel: Birkhäuser.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U. (2006). What matters in the cued task-switching paradigm: Tasks or cues? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 794–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U. (2009). Sticky plans: Inhibition and binding during serial task control. Cognitive Psychology, 59, 123–153.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., & Bell, T. (2006). On how to be unpredictable: Evidence from the voluntary task-switching paradigm. Psychological Science, 17, 774–780.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 22, 1423–1442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Hierarchical control of cognitive processes: Switching tasks in sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 623–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (in press). Task-switching performance with 1:1 and 2:1 cue—task mappings: Not so different after all. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition.

  • Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. R. (1994). Tool and symbol in child development. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 99–174). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, 97403, Eugene, OR

    Ulrich Mayr

Authors
  1. Ulrich Mayr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrich Mayr.

Additional information

The work described here was funded through NIH Grant R01 AG19296-01A1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mayr, U. The surface structure and the deep structure of sequential control: What can we learn from task span switch costs?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17, 693–698 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.693

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.693

Keywords

Search

Navigation