Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
In task-switching paradigms, participants are often slower on incongruent than congruent trials, a pattern known as the task-rule congruency effect. This effect suggests that irrelevant task rules or associated responses may be retrieved automatically in spite of task cues. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether the task-rule congruency effect may be modulated via manipulations intended to induce variation in proactive control. Manipulating the proportion of congruent to incongruent trials strongly influenced the magnitude of the task-rule congruency effect. The effect was significantly reduced in a mostly incongruent list relative to a mostly congruent list, a pattern that was observed for not only biased but also 50 % congruent items. This finding implicates a role for global attentional control processes in the task-rule congruency effect. In contrast, enhancing the preparation of relevant (cued) task rules by the provision of a monetary incentive substantially reduced mixing costs but did not affect the task-rule congruency effect. These patterns support the view that there may be multiple routes by which proactive control can influence task-switching performance; however, only select routes appear to influence the automatic retrieval of irrelevant task rules.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Switching intentional set: exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance, XV (pp. 421–452). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Askren, M. K. A. (2010). You can’t have it both ways: An examination of congruency effects in task switching. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Blais, C., Harris, M. B., Guerrero, J. V., & Bunge, S. A. (2012). Rethinking the role of automaticity in cognitive control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 268–276. CrossRef
Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 76–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bugg, J. M., Diede, N. T., Cohen-Shikora, E. R., & Szelmecy, D. (2015). Expectations and experience: dissociable bases for cognitive control? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000106.
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 Pisapia, N., & Braver, T. S. (2006). A model of dual control mechanisms through anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex interactions. Neurocomputing, 69, 1322–1326. CrossRef
Egner, T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 380–390. CrossRef
Fagot, C. (1994). Chronometric investigations of task switching. Unpublished Dissertation, University of California-San Diego, San Diego, CA.
Frings, C., & Rothermund, K. (2011). To be or not to be…included in an event file: integration and retrieval of distractors in stimulus-response episodes is influenced by perceptual grouping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1209–1227. PubMed
Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task-set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: control of cognitive processes (pp. 331–355). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation and responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506. CrossRef
Hutchison, K. A. (2011). The interactive effects of listwide control, item-based control, and working memory capacity on Stroop performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 851–860. PubMed
Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and switch. Archives of Psychology, Whole No. 89.
Jimura, K., Locke, H. S., & Braver, T. S. (2010). Prefontal cortex mediation of cognitive enhancement in rewarding motivational contexts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 8871–8876. CrossRef
Lindsay, D. S., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: the relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 219–234. PubMed
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 and Cognition, 7, 166–174. CrossRef
Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J., & Williamson, J. (1984). Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 135–138. CrossRef
Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1124–1140. PubMed
Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423–1442. CrossRef
Meiran, N. (2005). Task rule congruency and Simon-like effects in switching between spatial tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1023–1041. CrossRef
Meiran, N., & Kessler, Y. (2008). The task rule congruency effect in task switching reflects activated long term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 137–157. PubMed
Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task cueing paradigm measure an “endogenous” task set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 493–516. PubMed
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). The cost of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231. CrossRef
Rubin, O., & Meiran, N. (2005). On the origins of the task mixing cost in the cuing task-switching paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1477–1491.
Schmidt, J. R. (2013). Temporal learning and list-level proportion congruency: conflict adaptation or learning when to respond? PLoS One,. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.008232012.
Schmidt, J. R. (2014). List-level transfer effects in temporal learning: further complications for the list-level proportion congruent effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 373–385. CrossRef
Schmidt, J. R., & Besner, D. (2008). The Stroop effect: Why proportion congruence has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 514–523. PubMed
Schneider, D. W. (2014). Isolating a mediated route for response congruency effects in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000049.
Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Modeling task switching without switching tasks: a short-term priming account of explicitly cued performance. Psychology: General, 134, 343––367.
Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 92–105. PubMed
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. CrossRef
Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cueing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 89–103. PubMed
Tzelgov, J. (1997). Specifying the relations between automaticity and consciousness: a theoretical note. Consciousness and Cognition, 6, 441–451. CrossRef
Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2011). Automaticity without extensive training: the role of memory retrieval in implementation of task-defined rules. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 347–354. CrossRef
- Proactive control of irrelevant task rules during cued task switching
Julie M. Bugg
Todd S. Braver
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg