Task-switch costs subsequent to cue-only trials
Abstract
There is abundant evidence that there is a performance cost associated with switching between tasks. This “switch cost” has been postulated to be driven by task performance on the preceding trial, but recent research challenges any necessary role of previous task performance in driving the cost. Across three experiments, we investigated whether it is difficult to switch from a task that was prepared but never performed. We replicated the finding of a switch cost following cue-only trials (involving no task performance) whilst controlling for a potential cue-switching confound. This cost was larger than that following completed trials when preparation interval was short (300 ms), and it reduced significantly with a longer preparation interval (1000 ms) on the current trial. We also found that preparing only to attend to a particular visual dimension (colour or shape) was sufficient to drive a significant subsequent switch cost, which appeared to be residual in nature; we speculate that this cost may reflect the persistence of unfulfilled task intentions and/or a strategic slowing when consecutive intentions conflict.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Altmann E. M. (2002). Functional decay of memory for tasks. Psychological Research, 66, 287–297.
Altmann E. M. (2004). The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA. Memory and Cognition, 32(1), 153–163.
Arrington C. M., Logan G. D., & Schneider D. W. (2007). Separating cue encoding from target processing in the explicit task-cuing procedure: Are there “true” task switch effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 484–502.
Astle D. E., Jackson G. M., & Swainson R. (2006). Dissociating neural indices of dynamic cognitive control in advance task-set preparation: An ERP study of task switching. Brain Research, 1125, 94–103.
Brass M., & von Cramon D. Y. (2004). Decomposing components of task preparation with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(4), 609–620.
Brown J. W., Reynolds J. R., & Braver T. S. (2007). A computational model of fractionated conflict-control mechanisms in task-switching. Cognitive Psychology, 55(1), 37–85.
Bugg J. M., & Scullin M. K. (2013). Controlling intentions: The surprising ease of stopping after going relative to stopping after never having gone. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2463–2471.
Cedrus Corporation. (2003). RB-730 response pad [computer hardware]. San Pedro, CA.
Desmet C., Fias W., & Brass M. (2012). Preparing or executing the wrong task: The influence on switch effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1172–1184.
de Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kiesel A., Steinhauser M., Wendt M., Falkenstein M., Jost K., Philipp A. M., & Koch I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching–a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874.
Lenartowicz A., Yeung N., & Cohen J. D. (2011). No-go trials can modulate switch cost by interfering with effects of task preparation. Psychological Research, 75(1), 66–76.
Logan G. D., & Bundesen C. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(3), 575–599.
Logan G. D., & Schneider D. W. (2006). Priming or executive control? Associative priming of cue encoding increases “switch costs” in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Memory & Cognition, 34(6), 1250–1259.
Los S. A., & Van der Burg E. (2010). The origin of switch costs: Task preparation or task application? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 63(10), 1895–1915.
Mayr U., & Kliegl R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 29(3), 362–372.
Meiran N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 22(6), 1423–1442.
Meiran N., Chorev Z., & Sapir A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41(3), 211–253.
Monsell S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140.
Monsell S., & Mizon G. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 493–516.
Monsell S., Sumner P., & Waters H. (2003). Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches. Memory and Cognition, 31(3), 327–342.
Philipp A. M., Jolicoeur P., Falkenstein M., & Koch I. (2007). Response selection and response execution in task switching: Evidence from a go-signal paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(6), 1062–1075.
Rogers R. D., & Monsell S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.
Rubinstein J. S., Meyer D. E., & Evans J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763–797.
Schuch S., & Koch I. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 92–105.
Swainson R., & Martin D. (2013). Covert judgements are sufficient to trigger subsequent task-switching costs. Psychological Research, 77(4), 434–448.
Vandierendonck A., Liefooghe B., & Verbruggen F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 601–626.
Verbruggen F., Liefooghe B., & Vandierendonck A. (2006). Selective stopping in task switching: The role of response selection and response execution. Experimental Psychology, 53(1), 48–57.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: August 1, 2017
Issue published: August 2017
Keywords
PubMed: 27174655
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 435
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 6 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 5
- Task Switching: Cognitive Control in Sequential Multitasking
- The effect of performing versus preparing a task on the subsequent swi...
- Evidence for a multicomponent hierarchical representation of dual task...
- An Experimenter's Influence on Motor Enhancements: The Effects of Lett...
- Not inertia but reconfiguration: Asymmetric switch cost in a hierarchi...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
EPS members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.
EPS members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
