Top

Gepubliceerd in:

06-02-2019 | Original Article

The impact of cue format and cue transparency on task switching performance

Auteurs: Miriam Gade, Marco Steinhauser

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2020

Abstract

Cues help in retrieving and implementing task-sets, that are actual representations of the to-be performed task in working memory. However, whereas previous studies revealed that the effectiveness of selecting and implementing task-sets based on cues depends on the type of cue (i.e., transparent words vs. arbitrary shapes), it is still unclear which characteristics of cues are responsible for these differences and whether the impact of the cue is bound to task-set retrieval only or also impacts task-set representations. For instance, the amount of interference during actual task performance has been reported to alter dependent on cue type as do preparation gains such as the reduction of switch cost. To investigate the effectiveness of cue characteristics (i.e., cue transparency and cue format), we manipulated those within- and between-participants in three experiments. Main dependent measures were switch costs in reaction times and error rates that occur when participants have to switch task-sets, and thus update working memory content. Our results consistently show beneficial effects of transparent cues for the reduction of switch cost. The influence of cue format was manifest in within-participants manipulation only and was mainly found in error rates. Overall, our data suggest that the amount of interference experienced in actual task performance can be significantly modulated dependent on cue type, suggesting flexible adaptation of the cognitive system to contextual information.

vorige artikel Humans derive task expectancies from sub-second and supra-second interval durations

volgende artikel Redefining the pattern of age-prospective memory-paradox: new insights on age effects in lab-based, naturalistic, and self-assigned tasks

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

In sum, per participant 27 trials were obtained for all possible within-participants’ factors (CTI, Task Transition and Cue Transparency for E1, and CTI, Task Transition and Cue Format for E2). Please note that the main interest of our study was bound to these variables and only those and their interactions will be discussed.

As we did not fully balance the number of participants for each combination of timing condition and cue format (see methods), we ran a control analysis in which we constrained our sample to be of same size for both cue formats in both timing conditions (i.e., nine participants with verbal cues and nine participants with pictorial cues in both timing conditions; the first nine participants collected for each condition were chosen) and could confirm that interactions involving format were already present in this reduced sample in RT data. To be concrete, an impact of transparency (opaque vs. transparent) depending on cue format (words vs. pictures) was already found, showing benefits of 87 ms for transparent word cues but cost of 12 ms for transparent pictorial cues, F(1, 32) = 9.50, p < .001, η_p² = 0.23. In error rates and percentage task errors, again, no opposing trends involving the format variable were observed, for the complete reduced ANOVA see Supplemental Material.

Altmann, E. M. (2004). Advance preparation in task switching: What work is being done? Psychological Science, 15(9), 616–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00729.x.CrossRefPubMed

Altmann, E. M. (2007). Cue-independent task-specific representations in task switching: Evidence from backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(5), 892–899. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.892.CrossRefPubMed

Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Review, 115(3), 602–639.CrossRefPubMed

Arbuthnott, K. D. (2005). The influence of cue type on backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), 1030–1042. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.1030.CrossRefPubMed

Arrington, C. M., Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2007). Separating cue encoding from target processing in the explicit task-cuing procedure: Are there” true” task switch effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 484.PubMed

Baddeley, A. D., Chincotta, D., & Adlam, A. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: Evidence from task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 641–657. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.641.CrossRef

Beisert, M., Massen, C., & Prinz, W. (2010). Embodied rules in tool use: a tool-switching study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(2), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016801.CrossRefPubMed

Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2007). The representation of instructions in working memory leads to autonomous response activation: Evidence from the first trials in the flanker paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(8), 1140–1154. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210600896674.CrossRef

Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2009). The representation of instructions operates like a prepared reflex: flanker compatibility effects found in first trial following S-R instructions. Experimental Psychology, 56(2), 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.2.128.CrossRefPubMed

Crump, M. J. C., & Logan, G. D. (2010). Contextual control over task-set retrieval. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(8), 2047–2053. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196681.CrossRef

Druey, M. D., & Hübner, R. (2007). The role of temporal cue-target overlap in backward inhibition under task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 749–754.CrossRef

Emerson, M. J., & Miyake, A. (2003). The role of inner speech in task switching: A dual-task investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00511-9 CrossRef

Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Cue-task associations in task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(6), 762–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701268005.CrossRef

Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2008). Dissociating cue-related and task-related processes in task inhibition: evidence from using a 2:1 cue-to-task mapping. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology = Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 62(1), 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/1196-1961.62.1.51.CrossRefPubMed

Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2014). Cue type affects preparatory influences on task inhibition. Acta Psychologica, 148, 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.12.009.CrossRefPubMed

Gade, M., Schuch, S., Druey, M. D., & Koch, I. (2014). Inhibitory control in task switching. In J. A. Grange, & G. Houghton (Eds.), Executive Control and Task Switching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task-set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes (Vol 18, pp. 331–355). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (2010). Heightened conflict in cue-target translation increases backward inhibition in set switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 1003–1009. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019129.CrossRefPubMed

Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (Eds.) (2014). Task Switching and Cognitive Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gruber, O., & Goschke, T. (2004). Executive control emerging from dynamic interactions between brain systems mediating language, working memory and attentional processes. Acta Psychologica, 115(2–3), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.12.003.CrossRefPubMed

Hernández, M., Martin, C., Barcelo, F., & Costa, A. (2013). Where is the bilingual advantage in task-switching? Journal of Memory and Language, 69(3), 257–276.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (2000). The prepared reflex: Automaticity and control in stimulus-response translation. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes (pp. 247–273). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 73(4), 512–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0234-2.CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B., & Wiers, R. W. (2017). Towards a unitary approach to human action control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(12), 940–949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.09.009.CrossRefPubMed

Jennings, J. R., & van der Molen, M. W. (2005). Preparation for speeded action as a psychophysiological concept. Psychological Bulletin, 131(3), 434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.3.434.CrossRefPubMed

Jost, K., De Baene, W., Koch, I., & Brass, M. (2013). A review of the role of cue processing in task switching. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 221(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000125.CrossRef

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(5), 849–874. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019842.CrossRefPubMed

Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: a review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.1.1.CrossRef

Koch, I., Frings, C., & Schuch, S. (2018). Explaining response-repetition effects in task switching: evidence from switching cue modality suggests episodic binding and response inhibition. Psychological Research, 82(3), 570–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0847-9.CrossRefPubMed

Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—an integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), 557–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000144 CrossRefPubMed

Lavric, A., Mizon, G. A., & Monsell, S. (2008). Neurophysiological signature of effective anticipatory task-set control: A task-switching investigation. European Journal of Neuroscience, 28(5), 1016–1029. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06372.x.CrossRef

Leibovich, T., Ashkenazi, S., Rubinsten, O., & Henik, A. (2013). Comparative judgments of symbolic and non-symbolic stimuli yield different patterns of reaction times. Acta Psychologica, 144(2), 308–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.07.010.CrossRefPubMed

Liefooghe, B., Houwer, J. D., & Wenke, D. (2013). Instruction-based response activation depends on task preparation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(3), 481–487. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0374-7.CrossRef

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 and Performance, 29(3), 575–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.3.575.CrossRefPubMed

Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393–434.CrossRefPubMed

Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2006). Interpreting instructional cues in task switching procedures: The role of mediator retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(2), 347.PubMed

Mayr, U. (2003). Towards principles of executive control: how mental sets are selected. In R.H. Kluwe, G. Lüer, & F. Rösler (Eds.), Principles of Learning and Memory (pp. 223–240). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-8030-5_13. (Birkhäuser Basel).

Mayr, U., & Bryck, R. L. (2007). Outsourcing control to the environment: effects of stimulus/response locations on task selection. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 71(1), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0039-x.CrossRefPubMed

Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1124–1140. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1124.CrossRefPubMed

Mayr, U., Kleffner-Canucci, K., Kikumoto, A., & Redford, M. A. (2014). Control of task sequences: What is the role of language? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 376–384.PubMed

Meiran, N., Pereg, M., Kessler, Y., Cole, M. W., & Braver, T. S. (2015). The power of instructions: Proactive configuration of stimulus–response translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(3), 768–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000063.CrossRefPubMed

Miyake, A., Emerson, M. J., Padilla, F., & Ahn, J.-C. (2004). Inner speech as a retrieval aid for task goals: the effects of cue type and articulatory suppression in the random task cuing paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 115(2–3), 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.12.004.CrossRefPubMed

Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 493–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.493.CrossRefPubMed

Oberauer, K. (2009). Design for a working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 45–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51002-X.CrossRef

R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/. Accessed 1 Feb 2018.

Rey-Mermet, A., & Gade, M. (2016). Contextual within-trial adaptation of cognitive control: Evidence from the combination of conflict tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(10), 1505–1532. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000229.CrossRefPubMed

Rey-Mermet, A., Gade, M., & Oberauer, K. (2017). Stop thinking about inhibition - Searching for individual and age differences in inhibition as explanatory psychometric construct. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 44, 501–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000450.CrossRef

Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207.CrossRef

Ruge, H., & Wolfensteller, U. (2010). Rapid formation of pragmatic rule representations in the human brain during instruction-based learning. Cerebral Cortex, 20(7), 1656–1667. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp228.CrossRefPubMed

Schneider, D. W. (2016). Investigating a method for reducing residual switch costs in cued task switching. Memory & Cognition, 44(5), 762–777. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0590-2.CrossRef

Seibold, J. C., Nolden, S., Oberem, J., Fels, J., & Koch, I. (2017). Intentional preparation of auditory attention-switches: explicit Cueing and sequential switch-predictability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 0(ja), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1344867.CrossRef

Singmann, H., Bolker, B., & Westfall, J. (2015). afex: Analysis of factorial experiments. R package version 0.13–145.

Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 174–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174.CrossRef

Steinhauser, M., & Gade, M. (2015). Distractor onset but not preparation time affects the frequency of task confusions in task switching. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01671.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2006). Response-based strengthening in task shifting: Evidence from shift effects produced by errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.517.CrossRefPubMed

Stevens, M., Lammertyn, J., Verbruggen, F., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Tscope: A C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS Windows platform. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 280–286. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192779.CrossRefPubMed

Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.13.1.89.CrossRefPubMed

Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 601–626. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019791.CrossRefPubMed

Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., Vandierendonck, A., & Demanet, J. (2007). Short cue presentations encourage advance task preparation: a recipe to diminish the residual switch cost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(2), 342–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.342.CrossRefPubMed

Waszak, F., Wenke, D., & Brass, M. (2008). Cross-talk of instructed and applied arbitrary visuomotor mappings. Acta Psychologica, 127(1), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.12.005.CrossRefPubMed

Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design (3rd edn.). London: McGraw-Hill.

Wolfensteller, U., & Ruge, H. (2012). Frontostriatal mechanisms in instruction-based learning as a hallmark of flexible goal-directed behavior. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00192.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: The impact of cue format and cue transparency on task switching performance
Auteurs: Miriam Gade
Marco Steinhauser
Publicatiedatum: 06-02-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01150-0

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2020

Is young children’s helping affected by helpees’ need? Preschoolers, but not infants selectively help needy others

I still hear a melody: investigating temporal dynamics of the Speech-to-Song Illusion

Unidirectional influence of vision on locomotion in multimodal spatial representations acquired from navigation

Influences of basic numerical abilities on graph reading performance

Persistence of repeated self-reported illusion of control as a product of action and outcome association in productive and preventive scenarios

Humans derive task expectancies from sub-second and supra-second interval durations