Abstract
Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany The present study examined the effect of instructions on sequential task preparation using a cuing paradigm with three tasks. All task transitions were predictable, whereas task identity was unpredictable in switches but predictable in repetitions. In Experiment 1, predictability (predictable vs. random) was manipulated while preparation time (i.e., the cue-stimulus interval, or CSI) remained constantly short. In Experiment 2, CSI was manipulated for predictable task transitions. Both experiments showed clear instruction effects, but these were restricted to predictable task repetitions, for which predictability determined the identity of the upcoming task. Predictability effects were small in task switches and were not modulated by instruction, suggesting that preparation is mainly task-specific rather than switch-specific. Together, these results suggest that intentional processes contribute to predictability benefits in task repetitions, probably by enhancing the monitoring of sequential transitions in working memory in order to maintain activation in task repetitions.
References
Altmann, E. M. (2004). The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA. Memory & Cognition, 32, 153–163.
Dienes, Z., & Berry, D. (1997). Implicit learning: Below the subjective threshold. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 3–23.
Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., & Kluwe, R. H. (2002). Preparatory processes in the task-switching paradigm: Evidence from the use of prob ability cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 468–483.
Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Cue-task associations in task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 762–769.
Gotler, A., Meiran, N., & Tzelgov, J. (2003). Nonintentional task set activation: Evidence from implicit task sequence learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 890–896.
Heuer, H., Schmidtke, V., & Kleinsorge, T. (2001). Implicit learning of sequences of tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 967–983.
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., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). Patterns, chunks, and hierarchies in serial reaction-time tasks. Psychological Research, 63, 22–35.
Koch, I., Philipp, A. M., & Gade, M. (2006). Chunking in task sequences modulates task inhibition. Psychological Science, 17, 346–350.
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., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4–26.
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.
Meiran, N., & Chorev, Z. (2005). Phasic alertness and the residual task-switching cost. Experimental Psychology, 52, 109–124.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.
Monsell, S., Sumner, P., & Waters, H. (2003). Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches. Memory & Cognition, 31, 327–342.
Nicholson, R., Karayanidis, F., Davies, A., & Michie, P. T. (2006). Components of task-set reconfiguration: Differential effects of “switch-to” and “switch-away” cues. Brain Research, 1121, 160–176.
Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Hierarchical control of cognitive processes: Switching tasks in sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 623–640.
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.
Sohn, M.-H., & Carlson, R. A. (2000). Effects of repetition and foreknowledge in task-set reconfiguration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 1445–1460.
Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2006). Response-based strengthening in task shifting: Evidence from shift effects produced by errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 32, 517–534.
Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Selective stopping in task switching: The role of response selection and response execution. Experimental Psychology, 53, 48–57.
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
Additional information
The experiments were conducted while the author was a senior research scientist at the Department of Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Munich, Germany.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koch, I. Instruction effects in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 448–452 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.2.448
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.2.448