Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-07-2008 | Original Article

That’s what task sets are for: shielding against irrelevant information

Auteurs: Gesine Dreisbach, Hilde Haider

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 4/2008

Abstract

Goal-directed behavior requires the cognitive system to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information. The authors show that task sets help to shield the system from irrelevant information. Participants had to respond to eight different colored word stimuli under different instruction conditions. They either had to learn the stimulus–response mappings (SR condition), to use one task set (1 TS condition) or to use two different task sets (2 TS condition). In the 2 TS and the SR conditions, participants showed response repetition effects (interaction of color repetition × response repetition), indicating that participants processed the color of the words. Importantly, the 1 TS condition did not show such an interaction. Overall, the results provide evidence for the shielding function of task sets. This benefit turns into costs in classical task switching paradigms. From this perspective, switch costs can be interpreted as the consequence of successful shielding on the previous task.

volgende artikel The Red Herring technique: a methodological response to the problem of demand characteristics

Of course, if we had introduced, say, a set of 50 new stimuli at once, we probably would have found better performance in the 2 TS condition as compared to the SR condition.

An additional analysis including the first three blocks did not provide any further information but can be reported on request.

We also ran an additional analysis including block as separate factor. Aside from a main effect block and a significant interaction block × instruction, no further higher order interaction including block and instruction proved reliable.

In order to rule out that this triple interaction color × instruction × response is solely due to the color × response interaction in the 2 TS condition, we ran the same analysis without this 2 TS condition. The triple interaction, however, remained highly significant, F(1,48) = 8.58; p < 0.01.

Alternatively, the binding of color and response in the SR condition might have occurred by default, that is, automatically and not due to the assumed task relevance of the color.

Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (2000). Task switching: Positive and negative priming of task-set. In G. W. Humphreys, J. Duncan, A. M. Treisman (Eds.), Attention, space and action: studies in cognitive neuroscience. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In: C. Umilta, & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT.

Ansorge, U., & Neumann, O. (2005). Intentions determine the effect of invisible metacontrast-masked primes: Evidence for top–down contingencies in a peripheral cueing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 762–777.PubMedCrossRef

Campbell, K. C., & Proctor, R. W. (1993). Repetition effects with categorizable stimulus and response sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1345–1362.CrossRef

De Fockert, J. W., Rees, G., Frith, C. D., & Lavie, N. (2001). The role of working memory in visual selective attention. Science, 291, 1803–1806.PubMedCrossRef

Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., & Haider H. (2007). The role of task-rules and stimulus–response mappings in the task switching paradigm. Psychological Research, 71, 383–392.PubMedCrossRef

Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., & Haider H. (2006). Implicit task sets in task switching? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 32, 1221–1233.CrossRef

Dreisbach, G., & Haider, H. (2006). Preparatory adjustment of cognitive control in the task switching paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 334–338.PubMed

Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., & Kluwe, R. H. (2002). Preparatory processes in the task switching paradigm: Evidence from the use of probability cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 28, 468–483.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.CrossRef

Hommel, B., Müsseler, J, Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.PubMedCrossRef

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, 245–261.PubMedCrossRef

Hübner, R., & Druey, M. D. (2007). Mulitple response codes play specific roles in response selection and inhibition under task switching. Psychological Research (in press).

Kleinsorge, T. (1999). Response repetition benefits and costs. Acta Psychologica, 103, 295–310.PubMedCrossRef

Kleinsorge, T., & Heuer, H. (1999). Hierarchical switching in a multi-dimensional task space. Psychological Research, 62, 300–312.CrossRef

Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subjects designs. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1, 476–490.

Mayr, U., & Keele, S. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1, 4–26.CrossRef

Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 362–372.PubMedCrossRef

Meiran, N. (2000a). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In: S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 331–355). Cambridge: MIT.

Meiran, N. (2000b). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In: S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: control of cognitive processes (pp. 377–399). Cambridge: MIT.

Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211–253.PubMedCrossRef

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 134–139.CrossRef

Notebaert, W., & Soetens, E. (2003). The influence of irrelevant stimulus changes on stimulus and response repetition effects. Acta Psychologica, 112, 143–156.PubMedCrossRef

Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991). Procedural learning: 1. Locus of practice effects in speeded choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 20–32.CrossRef

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

Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2004). The costs of changing the representation of action: response repetition and response–response compatibility in dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 566–582.PubMedCrossRef

Soetens, E. (1998). Localizing sequential effects in serial choice reaction time with the information reduction procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 547–568.CrossRef

Wenke, D., & Frensch, P. (2005). The influence of task instruction on action coding: constraint setting or direct coding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 803–819.PubMedCrossRef

Wylie, G., & Allport, A. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs”. Psychological Research, 63, 212–233.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: That’s what task sets are for: shielding against irrelevant information
Auteurs: Gesine Dreisbach
Hilde Haider
Publicatiedatum: 01-07-2008
Uitgeverij: Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 4/2008
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-007-0131-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2008

Context dependent learning in the serial RT task

Better late than never: how onsets and offsets influence prior entry and exit

The procedural learning of action order is independent of temporal learning

Self produced and observed actions influence emotion: the roles of action fluency and eye gaze

Absence of hardly pursued updating in a running memory task

The Red Herring technique: a methodological response to the problem of demand characteristics