Stimulus-related priming during task switching

Task switch cost (the deficit of performing a new task vs. a repeated task) has been partly attributed to priming of the repeated task, as well as to inappropriate preparation for the switched task. In the present study, we examined the nature of the priming effect by repeating stimulus-related processes, such as stimulus encoding or stimulus identification. We adopted a partial-overlap task-switching paradigm, in which only stimulus-related processes should be repeated or switched. The switch cost in this partial-overlap condition was smaller than the cost in the full-overlap condition, in which the task overlap involved more than stimulus processing, indicating that priming of a stimulus is a component of a switch cost. The switch cost in the partial-overlap condition, however, disappeared eventually with a long interval between two tasks, whereas the cost in the full-overlap condition remained significant. Moreover, the switch cost, in general, did not interact with foreknowledge, suggesting that preparation on the basis of foreknowledge may be related to processes beyond stimulus encoding. These results suggest that stimulus-related priming is automatic and short-lived and, therefore, is not a part of the persisting portion of switch cost.

[1]  I. Biederman,et al.  Mental set and mental shift revisited , 1976 .

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

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

[5]  John R. Anderson,et al.  The role of prefrontal cortex and posterior parietal cortex in task switching. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[7]  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.

[8]  H. Haider,et al.  Preparatory processes in the task-switching paradigm: evidence from the use of probability cues. , 2002 .

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

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

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

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

[13]  D. Alan Allport,et al.  SHIFTING INTENTIONAL SET - EXPLORING THE DYNAMIC CONTROL OF TASKS , 1994 .

[14]  David E. Meyer,et al.  Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. , 2001 .

[15]  Nachshon Meiran,et al.  Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching , 2000 .

[16]  D. Meyer,et al.  Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  A. Allport,et al.  Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs” , 2000, Psychological research.

[18]  S. Monsell,et al.  Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. , 1995 .

[19]  J. H. Neely Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. , 1977 .