Abstract
In two experiments, participants were presented with successive presentations of animal names (e.g., GORILLA, WHALE)—a prime display followed by a probe display. In response to each display, participants judged either the typical habitat or the relative size of those animals, repeating the same task in response to both displays on half of the experimental trials and switching from one task to the other on the other half of trials. Our results demonstrate that switch costs can be reduced when either the probe's identity or its location is predictive of a change in task. This result establishes that the presentation of a stimulus can serve as a rapid cue for facilitating a switch in task, independent of processes occurring both at the time of the prime task and during the intervening period between the prime and probe tasks. We discuss the implications of these results for prevailing explanations of task switching costs.
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.
Allport, [D.] A., & Wylie, G. (2000). Task switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 35–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Arbuthnott, K. D., & Woodward, T. S. (2002). The influence of cuetask association and location on switch cost and alternating-switch cost. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 18–29.
Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2004). Episodic and semantic components of the compound-stimulus strategy in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Memory & Cognition, 32, 965–978.
Bodner, G. E., & Masson, M. E. J. (1997). Masked repetition priming of words and nonwords: Evidence for a nonlexical basis for priming. Journal of Memory & Language, 37, 268–293.
Bodner, G. E., & Masson, M. E. J. (2001). Prime validity affects masked repetition priming: Evidence for an episodic resource account of priming. Journal of Memory & Language, 45, 616–647.
Corballis, P. M., & Gratton, G. (2003). Independent control of processing strategies for different locations in the visual field. Biological Psychology, 64, 191–209.
Crump, M. J. C., Gong, Z., & Milliken, B. (2006). The context-specific proportion congruent Stroop effect: Location as a contextual cue. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 316–321.
Crump, M. J. C., Vaquero, J. M. M., & Milliken, B. (2008). Context-specific learning and control: The roles of awareness, task relevance, and relative salience. Consciousness & Cognition, 17, 22–36.
De Jong, R. (2000). An intention—activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
De Jong, R., Berendsen, E., & Cools, R. (1999). Goal neglect and inhibitory limitations: Dissociable causes of interference effects in conflict situations. Acta Psychologica, 101, 379–394.
Dishon-Berkovits, M., & Algom, D. (2000). The Stroop effect: It is not the robust phenomenon that you have thought it to be. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1437–1449.
Dreisbach, G., & Haider, H. (2006). Preparatory adjustment of cognitive control in the task switching paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 334–338.
Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., & Kluwe, R. H. (2002). Preparatory processes in the task-switching paradigm: Evidence from the use of probability cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 468–483.
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. 331–356). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Grill-Spector, K. (2003). The neural basis of object perception. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13, 159–166.
Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus—response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.
Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500.
Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.
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.
Jacoby, L. L., Lindsay, D. S., & Hessels, S. (2003). Item-specific control of automatic processes: Stroop process dissociations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 638–644.
Jacoby, L. L., McElree, B., & Trainham, T. N. (1999). Automatic influences as accessibility bias in memory and Stroop tasks: Toward a formal model. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance. Interaction of theory and application (pp. 461–486). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 14 (Whole No. 89).
Johnston, J. C., & Pashler, H. (1990). Close binding of identity and location in visual feature perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16, 843–856.
Joordens, S., & Becker, S. (1997). The long and short of semantic priming effects in lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 1083–1105.
Koch, I. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 1474–1486.
Leboe, J. P., & Milliken, B. (2004). Single-prime negative priming in the shape-matching task: Implications for the role of perceptual segmentation processes. Visual Cognition, 11, 603–630.
Leboe, J. P., Mondor, T. A., & Leboe, L. C. (2006). Feature mismatch effects in auditory negative priming: Interference as dependent on salient aspects of prior episodes. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 897–910.
Leboe, J. P., Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Milliken, B. (2005). Selective and nonselective transfer: Positive and negative priming in a multiple-task environment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1001–1029.
Lien, M.-C., Ruthruff, E., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (2005). On the limits of advance preparation for a task switch: Do people prepare all the task some of the time or some of the task all the time? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 299–315.
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., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: Facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop-like task. Memory & Cognition, 7, 166–174.
Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J., & Williamson, J. (1984). Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 135–138.
Lowe, D. G., & Mitterer, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 684–700.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.
Masson, M. E. J., & Bodner, G. E. (2003). A retrospective view of masked priming: Toward a unified account of masked and long-term repetition priming. In S. Kinoshita & S. J. Lupker (Eds.), Masked priming: The state of the art (pp. 57–94). New York: Psychology Press.
Mayr, U. (2002). Inhibition of action rules. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 93–99.
Mayr, U. (2006). What matters in the cued task-switching paradigm: Tasks or cues? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 794–799.
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. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4–26.
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., & 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.
Meuter, R. F. I., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching and naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory & Language, 40, 25–40.
Milliken, B., Joordens, S., Merikle, P. M., & Seiffert, A. E. (1998). Selective attention: A reevaluation of the implications of negative priming. Psychological Review, 105, 203–229.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.
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.
Monsell, S., Yeung, N., & Azuma, R. (2000). Reconfiguration of task-set: Is it easier to switch to the weaker task? Psychological Research, 63, 250–264.
Morris, C. D., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer-appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533
Neill, W. T. (1997). Episodic retrieval in negative priming and repetition priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 23, 1291–1305.
Neill, W. T., & Mathis, K. M. (1998). Transfer-inappropriate processing: Negative priming and related phenomena. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 38, pp. 1–44). San Diego: Academic Press.
Nieuwenhuis, S., & Monsell, S. (2002). Residual costs in task switching: Testing the failure-to-engage hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 86–92.
Philipp, A., & Koch, I. (2006). Task inhibition and task repetition in task switching. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18, 624–639.
Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychological Review, 95, 385–408.
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.
Rothermund, K., Wentura, D., & De Houwer, J. (2005). Retrieval of incidental stimulus-response associations as a source of negative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 482–495.
Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Priming cue encoding by manipulating transition frequency in explicitly cued task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 145–151.
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.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
Tenpenny, P. L. (1995). Abstractionist versus episodic theories of repetition priming and word identification. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 339–363.
Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352–373.
Tzelgov, J., Henik, A., & Berger, J. (1992). Controlling Stroop effects by manipulating expectations for color words. Memory & Cognition, 20, 727–735.
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.
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.
West, R., & Baylis, G. C. (1998). Effects of increased response dominance and contextual disintegration on the Stroop interference effect in older adults. Psychology & Aging, 13, 206–217.
Whittlesea, B. W. A., & Jacoby, L. L. (1990). Interaction of prime repetition with visual degradation: Is priming a retrieval phenomenon? Journal of Memory & Language, 29, 546–565.
Wong, J., & Leboe, J. P. (in press). Distinguishing between inhibitory and episodic accounts of switch-cost asymmetries. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology.
Wylie, G., & Allport, A. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs.” Psychological Research, 63, 212–233.
Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003). The effects of recent practice on task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 919–936.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by grants to J.P.L. from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and the Manitoba Research and Innovations Fund.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Leboe, J.P., Wong, J., Crump, M. et al. Probe-specific proportion task repetition effects on switching costs. Perception & Psychophysics 70, 935–945 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PP.70.6.935
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PP.70.6.935