The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA

A common finding in task-switching studies isswitch preparation (commonly known as the preparation effect), in which a longer interval between task cue and trial stimulus (i.e., a longer stimulus onset asynchrony, or SOA) reduces the cost of switching to a different task. Three experiments link switch preparation to within-subjects manipulations of SOA. In Experiment 1, SOA was randomized within subjects, producing switch preparation that was more pronounced when the SOA switched from the previous trial than when the SOA repeated. In Experiment 2, SOA was blocked within subjects, producing switch preparation but not on the first block of trials. In Experiment 3, SOA was manipulated between subjects with sufficient statistical power to detect switch preparation, but the effect was absent. The results favor an encoding view of cognitive control, but show that any putative switching mechanism reacts lazily when exposed to only one SOA.

[1]  Myeong-Ho Sohn,et al.  Stimulus-related priming during task switching , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[2]  Torsten B. Neilands,et al.  Power analysis for multivariate and repeated measures designs: A flexible approach using the SPSS MANOVA procedure , 2001, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[3]  E Ruthruff,et al.  Switching between simple cognitive tasks: the interaction of top-down and bottom-up factors. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  S. Keele,et al.  Changing internal constraints on action: the role of backward inhibition. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[5]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[6]  E Berendsen,et al.  Goal neglect and inhibitory limitations: dissociable causes of interference effects in conflict situations. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

[7]  Stephen Monsell,et al.  Residual costs in task switching: Testing the failure-to-engage hypothesis , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[8]  Carolyn J. Buck-Gengler,et al.  Processes underlying long-term repetition priming in digit data entry. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[9]  A F Kramer,et al.  Task coordination and aging: explorations of executive control processes in the task switching paradigm. , 1999, Acta psychologica.

[10]  I. Koch.  The role of external cues for endogenous advance reconfiguration in task switching , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[11]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Forgetting to Remember: The Functional Relationship of Decay and Interference , 2002, Psychological science.

[13]  N. Meiran.  Modeling cognitive control in task-switching , 2000, Psychological research.

[14]  M. Schmitter-Edgecombe,et al.  Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks following severe closed-head injury. , 2006, Neuropsychology.

[15]  I Koch,et al.  Automatic and intentional activation of task sets. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[16]  M. Gardner,et al.  USING CONFIDENCE INTERVALS , 1987, The Lancet.

[17]  Nilli Lavie,et al.  Selective attention and cognitive control: dissociating attentional functions through different types of load , 1998 .

[18]  Hilde Haider,et al.  Preparatory processes in the task-switching paradigm: evidence from the use of probability cues. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[19]  G. Logan,et al.  Clever homunculus: is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  C. Lebiere,et al.  The Atomic Components of Thought , 1998 .

[21]  Hugh Garavan,et al.  Serial attention within working memory , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[22]  Erik M Altmann,et al.  Functional decay of memory for tasks , 2002, Psychological research.

[23]  R De Jong,et al.  An intention-activation account of residual switch costs , 2000 .

[24]  D Gopher,et al.  Switching tasks and attention policies. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[25]  F. Tornay,et al.  A More Complete Task-Set Reconfiguration in Random than in Predictable Task Switch , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[26]  R. A. Carlson,et al.  Effects of repetition and foreknowledge in task-set reconfiguration. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  Ritske de Jong,et al.  Adult age differences in goal activation and goal maintenance , 2001 .

[28]  N. Meiran,et al.  Component Processes in Task Switching , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[29]  Lawrence H. Snyder,et al.  Executive control and task-switching in monkeys , 2003, Neuropsychologia.

[30]  B. Hommel,et al.  Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus–task bindings in task-shift costs , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[31]  Stephen J. Boies,et al.  Components of attention. , 1971 .

[32]  K. Murphy,et al.  Statistical Power Analysis: A Simple and General Model for Traditional and Modern Hypothesis Tests, Second Ediction , 1998 .

[33]  Arthur F Kramer,et al.  Multidimensional set switching , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[34]  J R Anderson,et al.  Task preparation and task repetition: two-component model of task switching. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[35]  N. Meiran.  Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. , 1996 .

[36]  J. Driver,et al.  Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII , 2000 .

[37]  N. Yeung,et al.  Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: the role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[38]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[39]  T. Shallice,et al.  Task Switching : A PDP Model , 2001 .

[40]  Erik M. Altmann,et al.  Tasks of a feather flock together: Similarity effects in task switching , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[41]  R. Kliegl,et al.  Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[42]  U. Mayr.  Inhibition of action rules , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[43]  Nachshon Meiran,et al.  Limitations in advance task preparation: Switching the relevant stimulus dimension in speeded same—different comparisons , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[44]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  Executive Control of Thought and Action , 2003 .

[45]  U. Lindenberger,et al.  Adult age differences in task switching. , 2000, Psychology and aging.

[46]  Stephen Monsell,et al.  Banishing the Control Homunculus , 2000 .

[47]  S. Monsell.  Task switching , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[48]  Stephen Monsell,et al.  Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[49]  T. Goschke.  Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task-set switching , 2000 .

[50]  I. Koch,et al.  The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[51]  E. C. Poulton,et al.  Influential companions: Effects of one strategy on another in the within-subjects designs of cognitive psychology. , 1982 .

[52]  D. Kieras,et al.  Modern computational perspectives on executive mental processes and cognitive control: Where to from here? , 2000 .