The effects of recent practice on task switching.

Four experiments investigated the effect of recent selective practice on the cost of switching between 2 tasks afforded by letter-digit pairs: alphabet arithmetic and shape comparison. Experiments 1 and 2 found a greater cost associated with switching to the more recently practiced task: evidence that task-set inertia contributes to switching costs. Experiment 3 found this effect to be limited to trials on which a recently trained stimulus followed another such stimulus: a result problematic for all current theories of task-set priming. Experiment 4 showed that the effect of recent practice was eliminated by active preparation for a task switch: It appears that endogenous task-set preparation reduces the effects of task-set inertia. ((c) 2003 APA, all rights reserved)

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

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

[3]  S Monsell,et al.  Reconfiguration of task-set: Is it easier to switch to the weaker task? , 2000, Psychological research.

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

[5]  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.

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

[7]  K. Arbuthnott,et al.  Executive control in set switching: residual switch cost and task-set inhibition. , 2000, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

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

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

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

[11]  A. Treisman,et al.  Attention, Space, and Action: Studies in Cognitive Neuroscience , 2001 .

[12]  Ritske de Jong,et al.  Strategical determinants of compatibility effects with task uncertainty , 1995 .

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

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

[15]  James L. McClelland,et al.  On the control of automatic processes: a parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. , 1990, Psychological review.

[16]  G. Wylie,et al.  Task-switching: Positive and negative priming of task-set. , 1999 .

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

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

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

[20]  S. Monsell.  Control of mental processes , 2021, Unsolved Mysteries of the Mind.

[21]  A. Allport,et al.  Bilingual Language Switching in Naming: Asymmetrical Costs of Language Selection , 1999 .

[22]  R. D. Gordon,et al.  Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. , 2001, Psychological review.

[23]  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.

[24]  R. Kliegl,et al.  Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[25]  D E Kieras,et al.  A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. , 1997, Psychological review.

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

[27]  G. Logan.  Executive control of thought and action , 1985 .

[28]  M. Moscovitch,et al.  Attention and Performance 15: Conscious and Nonconscious Information Processing , 1994 .

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

[30]  N. Harvey.  The Stroop Effect: Failure to Focus Attention or Failure to Maintain Focusing? , 1984 .

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

[32]  Stuart T. Klapp,et al.  Automatizing Alphabet Arithmetic : II . Are There Practice Effects After Automaticity Is Achieved ? , 1991 .

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

[34]  J. Stroop.  Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. , 1992 .

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

[36]  Colin M. Macleod,et al.  Training and Stroop-like interference: evidence for a continuum of automaticity. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[37]  G. Logan.  Toward an instance theory of automatization. , 1988 .

[38]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  Automatizing alphabet arithmetic: I. Is extended practice necessary to produce automaticity? , 1991 .

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

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