Abstract
Schneider and Logan (2006) recently showed that cue-switch and task-switch costs are sensitive to the relative probability of cue switches versus task switches. From this they concluded that taskswitch costs reflect priming of cue-cue transitions rather than actual task-switching operations. However, because this design confounded probability of specific cue transitions with probability of task switches, the results could also reflect task-switch-level adjustments. The present experiment (N = 80) pits the critical prediction of the cue-priming account, namely that costs for high-probability cue-cue transitions are smaller than for low-probability cue-cue transitions, against the main prediction of the switch-probability account, namely that switch probability, irrespective of specific cue-cue transitions, determines switch costs. Whereas the cue-priming prediction was rejected, a specific version of the probability account—that subjects are sensitive to the probability of a task switch, given a cue switch—was fully confirmed. Thus, tasks are in fact the critical representational units that determine task-switch cost.
Article PDF
References
Brass, M., &von Cramon, D. Y. (2002). The role of the frontal cortex in task preparation.Cerebral Cortex,12, 908–914.
Bryck, R. L., Gordon, K. B. C., & Mayr, U. (2004, April).Neural correlates of cue-switching and task-switching. Poster presented at the Cognitive Neuroscience Society Meeting, San Francisco.
Gotler, A., Meiran, N., &Tzelgov, J. (2003). Nonintentional task set activation: Evidence from implicit task sequence learning.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,10, 890–896.
Jost, K., Mayr, U., & Rösler, F. (2006).Is task switching nothing but cue priming? Evidence from ERPs. Manuscript in preparation.
Koch, I. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 1474–1486.
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.
Mayr, U., &Bell, T. (2006). On how to be unpredictable: Evidence from the voluntary task-switching paradigm.Psychological Science,17, 774–780.
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.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 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 & Performance,32, 493–516.
Philipp, A. M., &Koch, I. (2006). Task inhibition and task repetition in task switching.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology,18, 624–639.
Schneider, D. W., &Logan, G. D. (2006). Priming cue encoding by manipulating transition frequency in explicitly cued task switching.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,13, 145–151.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mayr, U. What matters in the cued task-switching paradigm: Tasks or cues?. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13, 794–799 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193999
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193999