Skip to main content
Log in

Instruction effects in task switching

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

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Altmann, E. M. (2004). The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA. Memory & Cognition, 32, 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dienes, Z., & Berry, D. (1997). Implicit learning: Below the subjective threshold. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Cue-task associations in task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 762–769.

    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 

  • Heuer, H., Schmidtke, V., & Kleinsorge, T. (2001). Implicit learning of sequences of tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 967–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 1474–1486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I. (2005). Sequential task predictability in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., & Allport, A. (2006). Cue-based preparation and stimulusbased priming of tasks in task switching. Memory & Cognition, 34, 433–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., & Hoffmann, J. (2000). Patterns, chunks, and hierarchies in serial reaction-time tasks. Psychological Research, 63, 22–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., Philipp, A. M., & Gade, M. (2006). Chunking in task sequences modulates task inhibition. Psychological Science, 17, 346–350.

    Article  PubMed  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.

    Article  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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (2000). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234–249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., & Chorev, Z. (2005). Phasic alertness and the residual task-switching cost. Experimental Psychology, 52, 109–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S., Sumner, P., & Waters, H. (2003). Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches. Memory & Cognition, 31, 327–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iring Koch.

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.2.448

Keywords

Navigation