Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
This study investigated effects of manipulating the response–cue interval (RCI) in the extended-runs task-switching procedure. In this procedure, a task cue is presented at the start of a run of trials and then withdrawn, such that the task has to be stored in memory to guide performance until the next task cue is presented. The effects of the RCI manipulation were not as predicted by an existing model of memory processes in task switching (Altmann and Gray, Psychol Rev 115:602–639, 2008), suggesting that either the model is incorrect or the RCI manipulation did not have the intended effect. The manipulation did produce a theoretically meaningful pattern, in the form of a main effect on response time that was not accompanied by a similar effect on the error rate. This pattern, which replicated across two experiments, is interpreted here in terms of a process that monitors for the next task cue, with a longer RCI acting as a stronger signal that a cue is about to appear. The results have implications for the human factors of dynamic task environments in which critical events occur unpredictably.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Altmann, E. M. (2004). Advance preparation in task switching: What work is being done? Psychological Science, 15, 616–622. CrossRef
Altmann, E. M. (2005). Repetition priming in task switching: Do the benefits dissipate? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 535–540. CrossRef
Altmann, E. M. (2011). Testing probability matching and episodic retrieval accounts of response repetition effects in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 935–951
Altmann, E. M. (2013). Fine-grain episodic memory processes in cognitive control. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 221, 23–32. CrossRef
Altmann, E. M. (2014). The extended runs procedure and restart cost. In J. A. Grange & G. Houghton (Eds.), Task switching and cognitive control (pp. 101–116). New York: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Review, 115, 602–639. CrossRef
Erlebacher, A. (1977). Design and analysis of experiments contrasting the within- and between-subjects manipulation of the independent variable. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 212–219. CrossRef
Grange, J. A., & Cross, E. (2015). Can time-based decay explain temporal distinctiveness effects in task switching? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 19–45. CrossRef
Horoufchin, H., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2011). The dissipating task-repetition benefit in cued task switching: Task-set decay or temporal distinctiveness? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 455–472.
Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874. CrossRef
Mari-Beffa, P. (2014). The mixing cost as a measure of cognitive control. In J. A. Grange & G. Houghton (Eds.), Task switching and cognitive control (pp. 74–100). New York: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211–253. CrossRef
Poljac, E., & Bekkering, H. (2009). Generic cognitive adaptations to task interference in task switching. Acta Psychologica, 132, 279–285. CrossRef
Poljac, E., de Haan, A., & van Galen, G. P. (2006). Current task activation predicts general effects of advance preparation in task switching. Experimental Psychology, 53, 260–267. CrossRef
Smith, R. E., Hunt, R. R., McVay, J. C., & McConnell, M. D. (2007). The cost of event-based prospective memory: Salient target events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 734–746.
Sohn, M.-H., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Task preparation and task repetition: Two-component model of task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 764–778. CrossRef
Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626. CrossRef
- Response–cue interval effects in extended-runs task switching: memory, or monitoring?
Erik M. Altmann
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg