Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in:

25-10-2018 | Original Article

Stimulus- and response-based interference contributes to the costs of switching between cognitive tasks

Auteurs: Bruno Kopp, Alexander Steinke, Nachshon Meiran, Caroline Seer, Florian Lange

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2020

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Little is known about how stimulus- and response-based interference might interact to contribute to the costs of switching between cognitive tasks. We analyzed switch costs in a novel cued task-switching/card-matching paradigm in a large study (N = 95). We reasoned that interference from previously active task sets may be contingent upon the retrieval of these task sets via stimulus processing, or alternatively, via response processing. We examined the efficacy of these two factors through eligibility manipulations. That is, stimulus/response features that were capable of retrieving task sets from the previous trial remained eligible (or not) on the current trial. We report three main findings: first, no switch costs were found when neither stimulus features, nor response features, were adequate for the retrieval of the previously executed task sets. Second, we found substantial switch costs when, on switch trials, stimulus features kept the previously executed task eligible, and we found roughly equivalent switch costs when the previously executed response remained eligible. Third, evidence for stimulus-induced switch costs was exclusively observed when previously executed responses remained ineligible. These data indicate that stimulus-based interference, and of importance, response-based interference, contribute comparably to switch costs. Possible interpretations of non-additive switch costs are discussed.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Voetnoten
1
The WCST is often criticized for its complexity, which originates from arbitrary features of the standard material. Let r be the number of sorting rules, and let f be the number of rule features (r = 3, f = 4 for the WCST). There are fr distinct response cards (Dehaene & Changeux 1991), rendering the WCST a complex task requiring sufficient intellectual comprehension. fr may be considered as a general metric of card-matching complexity, c, with WCST-c = 64
 
2
The terms “stimulus-task” and “response-task” mean something completely different and should not be confused with similar terms used by Meiran (2000a, b): here they mean that the stimulus (or response) gets bound with the task set. In Meiran’s theory, the terms “stimulus-set” and “response-set” meant to represent two separate aspects of what we call here “task set”. The idea in that theory was that task sets are conglomerates of representations that include which aspects of the stimulus are attended/ignored (stimulus-set) and which parts of the response (representation) are attended/ignored—the “response-set”
 
3
Note that we conducted a control study in which the eligibility of reference cards/responses was manipulated by deleting one of the three reference cards instead of introducing response cues. The observed two-way interaction effect of Task Transition and CTE that we obtained in the control study parallels the findings that were reported on PRi trials in the main study. This result suggests that the presence of a two-way interaction effect in the main study cannot be attributed to the introduction of response cues. Please see the supplementary material for details
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting Intentional Set: Exploring the Dynamic Control of Tasks. In C. A. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT Press. Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting Intentional Set: Exploring the Dynamic Control of Tasks. In C. A. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT Press.
go back to reference Allport, 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. 377–399). Cambridge: MIT Press. Allport, 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. 377–399). Cambridge: MIT Press.
go back to reference Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (Eds.). (2014). Task switching and cognitive control. New York: Oxford University Press. Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (Eds.). (2014). Task switching and cognitive control. New York: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Hübner, R., Druey M. D. (2006). Response execution, selection, or activation: What is sufficient for response-related repetition effects under task shifting? Psychological Research, 70(4), 245–261.CrossRef Hübner, R., Druey M. D. (2006). Response execution, selection, or activation: What is sufficient for response-related repetition effects under task shifting? Psychological Research, 70(4), 245–261.CrossRef
go back to reference Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 89, 1–82. Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 89, 1–82.
go back to reference Kieffaber, P. D., Kruschke, J. K., Cho, R. Y., Walker, P. M., & Hetrick, W. P. (2013). Dissociating stimulus-set and response-set in the context of task-set switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 700–719. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029545.CrossRefPubMed Kieffaber, P. D., Kruschke, J. K., Cho, R. Y., Walker, P. M., & Hetrick, W. P. (2013). Dissociating stimulus-set and response-set in the context of task-set switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 700–719. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0029545.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Meiran, N. (2000b). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes. Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 377–399). Cambridge: MIT Press. Meiran, N. (2000b). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes. Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 377–399). Cambridge: MIT Press.
go back to reference Meiran, N. (2014). The task-cuing paradigm: A User’s guide. In J. A. Grange & G. Houghton (Eds.), Task switching and cognitive control (pp. 45–73). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Meiran, N. (2014). The task-cuing paradigm: A User’s guide. In J. A. Grange & G. Houghton (Eds.), Task switching and cognitive control (pp. 45–73). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
go back to reference Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A Compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary (3rd edn.). New York: Oxford University Press. Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A Compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary (3rd edn.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Metagegevens
Titel
Stimulus- and response-based interference contributes to the costs of switching between cognitive tasks
Auteurs
Bruno Kopp
Alexander Steinke
Nachshon Meiran
Caroline Seer
Florian Lange
Publicatiedatum
25-10-2018
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1113-5

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2020

Psychological Research 4/2020 Naar de uitgave