Executive control in set switching: residual switch cost and task-set inhibition.

Executive processes necessary for flexibly switching between different tasks were studied using a set switching paradigm that requires participants to rapidly switch between different tasks across consecutive trials. Switch cost reflects poorer performance for task-switch trials than for consecutive same-task trials. Significant switch cost was observed even with considerable preparation time before a task-switch, an effect known as residual switch cost. This study tested the hypothesis that one process underlying residual switch cost is inhibition of the previous task-set. We used semantic categorization tasks to compare switch cost between alternating task series (ABA) and nonalternating series (ABC) in order to test the generality of a task-set inhibition effect previously observed with perceptual judgment tasks (Mayr & Keele, in press). The results yielded significant switch cost only for alternating tasks, in both response times and errors resulting from performance of the wrong task. Thus, resolving inhibition associated with previously abandoned task-sets may be the main process underlying residual switch costs, suggesting that task-set inhibition is an important executive control process.

[1]  E. D. Haan,et al.  Random generation deficit in alcoholic Korsakoff patients , 1995, Neuropsychologia.

[2]  S. Pinker.  The Language Instinct , 1994 .

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

[4]  A Baddeley,et al.  Random Generation and the Executive Control of Working Memory , 1998, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[5]  P. Brugger,et al.  Random number generation in dementia of the Alzheimer type: A test of frontal executive functions , 1996, Neuropsychologia.

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

[7]  Alan Baddeley,et al.  Frontal amnesia and the dysexecutive syndrome , 1988, Brain and Cognition.

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

[9]  I. Robertson,et al.  `Oops!': Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects , 1997, Neuropsychologia.

[10]  T. Shallice.  From Neuropsychology to Mental Structure , 1988 .

[11]  C L MacKenzie,et al.  Motor skill: feedback, knowledge, and structural issues. , 1985, Canadian journal of psychology.

[12]  G. Goldenberg,et al.  Components of Random Generation by Normal Subjects and Patients with Dysexecutive Syndrome , 1993, Brain and Cognition.

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

[14]  M. Schmuckler.  Expectancy effects in memory for melodies. , 1997, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[15]  A. Damasio.  Descartes' error: emotion, reason, and the human brain. avon books , 1994 .

[16]  K. Arbuthnott.  Inhibitory mechanisms in cognition: phenomena and models , 1995 .

[17]  M. Ashcraft.  Cognitive arithmetic: A review of data and theory , 1992, Cognition.

[18]  Mark C. Detweiler,et al.  A Connectionist/Control Architecture for Working Memory , 1988 .

[19]  A. Baddeley.  Exploring the Central Executive , 1996 .

[20]  U. Castiello.  Grasping a fruit: selection for action. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  L. Cuddy,et al.  Dissociation of musical tonality and pitch memory from nonmusical cognitive abilities. , 1997, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.