Instruction effects in task switching
- PMID: 18488667
- DOI: 10.3758/pbr.15.2.448
Instruction effects in task switching
Abstract
The present study examined the effect of instructions on sequential task preparation using a cuing paradigm with three tasks. All task transitions were predictable, whereas task identity was unpredictable in switches but predictable in repetitions. In Experiment 1, predictability (predictable vs. random) was manipulated while preparation time (i.e., the cue-stimulus interval, or CSI) remained constantly short. In Experiment 2, CSI was manipulated for predictable task transitions. Both experiments showed clear instruction effects, but these were restricted to predictable task repetitions, for which predictability determined the identity of the upcoming task. Predictability effects were small in task switches and were not modulated by instruction, suggesting that preparation is mainly task-specific rather than switch-specific. Together, these results suggest that intentional processes contribute to predictability benefits in task repetitions, probably by enhancing the monitoring of sequential transitions in working memory in order to maintain activation in task repetitions.
Similar articles
-
Sequential task predictability in task switching.Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Feb;12(1):107-12. doi: 10.3758/bf03196354. Psychon Bull Rev. 2005. PMID: 15945203
-
Task switching versus cue switching: using transition cuing to disentangle sequential effects in task-switching performance.J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007 Mar;33(2):370-8. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.370. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007. PMID: 17352618
-
Intentional preparation of auditory attention-switches: Explicit cueing and sequential switch-predictability.Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2018 Jun;71(6):1382-1395. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2017.1344867. Epub 2018 Jan 1. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2018. PMID: 28631530
-
Advance preparation in task switching: what work is being done?Psychol Sci. 2004 Sep;15(9):616-22. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00729.x. Psychol Sci. 2004. PMID: 15327633
-
Control and interference in task switching--a review.Psychol Bull. 2010 Sep;136(5):849-74. doi: 10.1037/a0019842. Psychol Bull. 2010. PMID: 20804238 Review.
Cited by
-
Time-Based Transition Expectancy in Task Switching: Do We Need to Know the Task to Switch to?J Cogn. 2021 Mar 10;4(1):19. doi: 10.5334/joc.145. J Cogn. 2021. PMID: 33748664 Free PMC article.
-
The role of inhibition in task switching: a review.Psychon Bull Rev. 2010 Feb;17(1):1-14. doi: 10.3758/PBR.17.1.1. Psychon Bull Rev. 2010. PMID: 20081154 Review.
-
Dissociating restart cost and mixing cost in task switching.Psychol Res. 2009 May;73(3):407-16. doi: 10.1007/s00426-008-0151-9. Epub 2008 Apr 30. Psychol Res. 2009. PMID: 18446364 Clinical Trial.
-
Cognitive control over unconscious cognition: flexibility and generalizability of task set influences on subsequent masked semantic priming.Psychol Res. 2019 Oct;83(7):1556-1570. doi: 10.1007/s00426-018-1011-x. Epub 2018 Apr 13. Psychol Res. 2019. PMID: 29654364
-
Task-switching performance with 1:1 and 2:1 cue-task mappings: not so different after all.J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 Mar;37(2):405-15. doi: 10.1037/a0021967. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011. PMID: 21299334 Free PMC article.