Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching
Tóm tắt
In this study, we investigated the interaction of three different sources of task activation in precued task switching. We distinguished (1) intentional, cue-based task activation from two other, involuntary sources of activation: (2) persisting activation from the preceding task and (3) stimulus-based task activation elicited by the task stimulus itself. We assumed that cue-based task activation increases as a function of cue—stimulus interval (CSI) and that task activation from the preceding trial decays as a function of response—stimulus interval. Stimulus-based task activation is thought to be due to involuntary retrieval of stimulus-associated tasks. We manipulated stimulus-based task activation by mapping each of the stimuli consistently to only one or the other of the two tasks. After practice, we reversed this mapping in order to test the effects of item-specific stimulus—task association. The mapping reversal resulted in increased reaction times and increased task shift costs. These stimulus-based priming effects were markedly reduced with a long CSI, relative to a short CSI, suggesting that stimulus-based priming shows up in performance principally when competition between tasks is high and that cue-based task activation reduces task competition. In contrast, lengthening the response—cue interval (decay time) reduced shift costs but did not reduce the stimulus-based priming effect. The data are consistent with separable stimulus-related and response-related components of task activation. Further theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., &Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.,Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
Allport, [D.] A., &Wylie, G. (1999). Task-switching: Positive and negative priming of task-set. In G. W. Humphreys, J. Duncan, & A. Treisman (Eds.),Attention, space, and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 273–296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Allport, [D.] A., &Wylie, G. (2000). “Task-switching,” stimulus—response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 35–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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 & Cognition,32, 153–163.
Braver, T. S., &Cohen, J. D. (2000). On the control of control: The role of dopamine in regulating prefrontal function and working memory. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 713–737). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Braver, T. S., Reynolds, J. R., &Donaldson, D. I. (2003). Neural mechanisms of transient and sustained cognitive control during task switching.Neuron,39, 713–726.
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.
Duncan, J. (1996). Cooperating brain systems in selective perception and action. In T. Inui & J. L. McClelland (Eds.),Attention and performance XVI: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 549–578). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.
Duncan, J., Humphreys, G., &Ward, R. (1997). Competitive brain activity in visual attention.Current Opinion in Neurobiology,7, 255–261.
Gade, M., &Koch, I. (2005). Linking inhibition to activation in the control of task sequences.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,12, 530–534.
Gilbert, S., &Shallice, T. (2002). Task switching: A PDP model.Cognitive Psychology,44, 297–337.
Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task-set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 333–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hübner, R., Futterer, T., &Steinhauser, M. (2001). On attentional control as source of residual shift costs: Evidence from two component task shifts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 640–653.
Koch, I. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 1474–1486.
Koch, I. (2005). Sequential task predictability in task switching.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,12, 107–112.
Koch, I., Gade, M., &Philipp, A. (2004). Inhibition of response mode in task switching.Experimental Psychology,51, 51–57.
Koch, I., &Philipp, A. (2005). Effects of response selection on the task repetition benefit in task switching.Memory & Cognition,33, 624–634.
Koch, I., Prinz, W., &Allport, A. (2005). Involuntary retrieval in alphabet-arithmetic tasks: Task-mixing and task-switching costs.Psychological Research,69, 252–261.
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 & Performance,29, 575–599.
Logan, G. D., &Bundesen, C. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 832–840.
Los, S. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials.Acta Psychologica,94, 145–188.
Mayr, U., &Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,129, 4–26.
Mayr, U., &Kliegl, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 362–372.
Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1423–1442.
Meiran, N. (2000a). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching.Psychological Research,63, 234–249.
Meiran, N. (2000b). The reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 377–400). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., &Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching.Cognitive Psychology,41, 211–253.
Miller, E. K. (2000). The prefrontal cortex and cognitive control.Nature Reviews Neuroscience,1, 59–65.
Miller, E. K., &Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function.Annual Review of Neuroscience,24, 167–202.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 134–140.
Nieuwenhuis, S., &Monsell, S. (2002). Residual costs in task switching: Testing the failure-to-engage hypothesis.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 86–92. or]Philipp, A., & Koch, I. (dyin press). The relation of task inhibition and task repetition in task switching.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology.
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., Meyer, D. E., &Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Hman Perception & Performance,27, 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 & Performance,29, 92–105.
Schuch, S., &Koch, I. (2004). The costs of changing the representation of action: Response repetition and response—response compatibility in dual tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,30, 566–582.
Shiffrin, R. M., &Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory.Psychological Review,84, 127–190.
Sohn, M.-H., &Anderson, J. R. (2001). Task preparation and task repetition: Two-component model of task switching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,130, 764–778.
van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1981).Short-term visual information forgetting. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Ward, R. (1999). Interactions between perception and action systems: A model for selective attention. In G. W. Humphreys, J. Duncan, & A. Treisman (Eds.),Attention, space, and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 311–332). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Waszak, F., Hommel, B., &Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic S—R bindings in task-shift costs.Cognitive Psychology,46, 361–413.
Waszak, F., Hommel, B., &Allport, A. (2004). Semantic generalization of stimulus—task bindings.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 1027–1033.
Waszak, F., Hommel, B., &Allport, A. (2005). Interaction of task readiness and automatic retrieval in task switching: Negative priming and competitor priming.Memory & Cognition,33, 595–610.
Yeung, N., &Monsell, S. (2003a). The effects of recent practice on task switching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 919–936.
Yeung, N., &Monsell, S. (2003b). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: The role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 455–469.