The dissipating task-repetition benefit in cued task switching: Task-set decay or temporal distinctiveness?

2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 455-472 ◽  
Author(s):  
Himeh Horoufchin ◽  
Andrea M. Philipp ◽  
Iring Koch
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Task Repetition ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Temporal Distinctiveness ◽  
Switching Task

A Review of the Role of Cue Processing in Task Switching

2013 ◽  
Vol 221 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin Jost ◽  
Wouter De Baene ◽  
Iring Koch ◽  
Marcel Brass
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Control ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Task Switch ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Set Switching ◽  
Controversial Topic ◽  
Cue Encoding ◽  
Cue Processing

The role of cue processing has become a controversial topic in research on cognitive control using task-switching procedures. Some authors suggested a priming account to explain switch costs as a form of encoding benefit when the cue from the previous trial is repeated and hence challenged theories that attribute task-switch costs to task-set (re)configuration. A rich body of empirical evidence has evolved that indeed shows that cue-encoding repetition priming is an important component in task switching. However, these studies also demonstrate that there are usually substantial “true” task-switch costs. Here, we review this behavioral, electrophysiological, and brain imaging evidence. Moreover, we describe alternative approaches to the explicit task-cuing procedure, such as the usage of transition cues or the task-span procedure. In addition, we address issues related to the type of cue, such as cue transparency. We also discuss methodological and theoretical implications and argue that the explicit task-cuing procedure is suitable to address issues of cognitive control and task-set switching.

Exploring the Task Set Decay Hypothesis in Task Switching

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Himeh Horoufchin ◽  
Iring Koch ◽  
Andrea M. Philipp
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Task Set

scholarly journals No-go trials in task switching: effects on the task-set and task-space level

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliane Scheil ◽  
Thomas Kleinsorge
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
The Other ◽  
Specific Task ◽  
Task Space ◽  
Response Level ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Common Marker ◽  
Task Sets ◽  
And Task

AbstractA common marker for inhibition processes in task switching are n − 2 repetition costs. The present study aimed at elucidating effects of no-go trials on n − 2 repetition costs. In contrast to the previous studies, no-go trials were associated with only one of the three tasks in the present two experiments. High n − 2 repetition costs occurred if the no-go task had to be executed in trial n − 2, irrespective of whether a response had to be withheld or not. In contrast, no n − 2 repetition costs were visible if the other two tasks were relevant in n − 2. Whereas this n − 2 effect was unaffected by whether participants could reliably exclude a no-go trial or not, effects of no-gos in trial n were determined by this knowledge. The results differ from effects of no-go trials that are not bound to a specific task. It is assumed that the present no-go variation exerted its effect not on the response level, but on the level of task sets, resulting in enhanced salience of the no-go task that leads to higher activation and, as a consequence, to stronger inhibition. The dissociation of the effects on no-gos in trials n − 2 and n as a function of foreknowledge suggests that the balance between activation and inhibition is shifted not only for single trials and tasks, but for the whole task space.

Investigating task and modality switching costs using bimodal stimuli

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (0) ◽  
pp. 22
Author(s):  
Raj Sandhu ◽  
Ben Dyson
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Visual Stimulus ◽  
Switching Costs ◽  
Stimulus Presentation ◽  
Task Type ◽  
Task Repetition ◽  
Specific Combination ◽  
Task Change ◽  
Modality Switching ◽  
And Task

Investigations of concurrent task and modality switching effects have to date been studied under conditions of uni-modal stimulus presentation. As such, it is difficult to directly compare resultant task and modality switching effects, as the stimuli afford both tasks on each trial, but only one modality. The current study investigated task and modality switching using bi-modal stimulus presentation under various cue conditions: task and modality (double cue), either task or modality (single cue) or no cue. Participants responded to either the identity or the position of an audio–visual stimulus. Switching effects were defined as staying within a modality/task (repetition) or switching into a modality/task (change) from trial n − 1 to trial n, with analysis performed on trial n data. While task and modality switching costs were sub-additive across all conditions replicating previous data, modality switching effects were dependent on the modality being attended, and task switching effects were dependent on the task being performed. Specifically, visual responding and position responding revealed significant costs associated with modality and task switching, while auditory responding and identity responding revealed significant gains associated with modality and task switching. The effects interacted further, revealing that costs and gains associated with task and modality switching varying with the specific combination of modality and task type. The current study reconciles previous data by suggesting that efficiently processed modality/task information benefits from repetition while less efficiently processed information benefits from change due to less interference of preferred processing across consecutive trials.

Effects of Working Memory Capacity, Task Switching, and Task Difficulty on Multitasking Performance

2016 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 502-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shijing Liu ◽  
Amy Wadeson ◽  
Na Young Kim ◽  
Chang S. Nam
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Task Difficulty ◽  
Working Memory Capacity ◽  
Memory Capacity ◽  
Trail Making ◽  
Human Operators ◽  
Switching Task ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
And Task

Multitasking requires human operators to handle the demands of multiple tasks through task switching at the same time and this ability is required in many jobs. Previous studies showed that different levels of working memory capacity (WMC) and task switching abilities can lead to differences on multitasking performance. With increased complexity of tasks, maintaining task performance is challenging. This study sought to find the relations of WMC, task switching, task difficulty, and multitasking performance. Multi-Attribute Task Battery II (MATB-II) was employed in this study as a platform to assess multitasking. Automated OSPAN and Trail Making Tasks (TMT) were used to assess WMC and the task switching ability, respectively. Results indicated that there were significant effects of these three parameters on multitasking performance. Other dimensions of multitasking performance will be addressed in future studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document