On attentional control as a source of residual shift costs: evidence from two-component task shifts.

It is widely assumed that supervisory or attentional control plays a role only in the preparatory reconfiguration of the mental system in task shifting. The well-known fact that residual shift costs are still present even after extensive preparation is usually attributed to passive mechanisms such as cross talk. The authors question this view and suggest that attentional control is also responsible for residual shift costs. The authors hypothesize that, under shift conditions, tasks are executed in a controlled mode to guarantee reliable performance. Consequently, the control of 2 task components should require more resources than the control of only 1. A series of 4 experiments with 2-component tasks was conducted to test this hypothesis. As expected, more residual shift costs were observed when 2 components rather than 1 varied across trials. Interference effects and sequential effects could not account for these results.

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

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

[3]  P. Dixon,et al.  Algorithms and selective attention , 1981, Memory & cognition.

[4]  Ronald Hübner.  Attention shifting between global and local target levels: The persistence of level-repetition effects , 2000 .

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

[6]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: 1. Detection, Search, and Attention. , 1977 .

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

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

[9]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. , 1977 .

[10]  A Heathcote,et al.  Response time distributions and the Stroop Task: a test of the Cohen, Dunbar, and McClelland (1990) model. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  V. Bruce.  Unsolved mysteries of the mind : tutorial essays in cognition , 1998 .

[12]  R Hübner,et al.  Perceiving spatially inseparable objects: evidence for feature-based object selection not mediated by location. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  D. A. Taylor,et al.  The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  L M Ward,et al.  Determinants of attention to local and global features of visual forms. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  Jonathan D. Cohen,et al.  Progress in the use of interactive models for understanding attention and performance , 1994 .

[16]  S. Yantis,et al.  Visual attention: control, representation, and time course. , 1997, Annual review of psychology.

[17]  Ronald Hübner,et al.  The effect of spatial frequency on global precedence and hemispheric differences , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  L. Robertson,et al.  Attentional persistence for features of hierarchical patterns. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[19]  Tim Shallice,et al.  MULTIPLE LEVELS OF CONTROL PROCESSES , 1994 .

[20]  G. Schwartz,et al.  Consciousness and Self-Regulation , 1976 .

[21]  ● Pytorch,et al.  Attention! , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

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

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

[25]  D. Navon.  Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[26]  D. Balota,et al.  Explorations of Cohen, Dunbar, and McClelland's (1990) connectionist model of Stroop performance. , 1998, Psychological review.

[27]  D. Norman,et al.  Attention to Action: Willed and Automatic Control of Behavior Technical Report No. 8006. , 1980 .

[28]  David E. Kieras,et al.  A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 2. Accounts of psychological refractory-period phenomena. , 1997 .

[29]  S. Rose.  Selective attention , 1992, Nature.

[30]  T Shallice,et al.  The domain of supervisory processes and temporal organization of behaviour. , 1996, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[31]  M. Lamb,et al.  Automatic and Controlled Processes in the Analysis of Hierarchical Structure , 1998 .

[32]  Ronald Hübner,et al.  Hemispheric Differences in Global/Local Processing Revealed by Same-Different Judgements , 1998 .

[33]  Jennifer M. Glass,et al.  Concurrent response-selection processes in dual-task performance: Evidence for adaptive executive control of task scheduling. , 1999 .

[34]  M. Just,et al.  A chronometric analysis of strategy preparation in choice reactions , 1986, Memory & cognition.