Selecting a response in task switching: testing a model of compound cue retrieval

Abstract

How can a task-appropriate response be selected for an ambiguous target stimulus in task-switching situations? One answer is to use compound cue retrieval, whereby stimuli serve as joint retrieval cues to select a response from long-term memory. In the present study, the authors tested how well a model of compound cue retrieval could account for a complex pattern of congruency effects arising from a procedure in which a cue, prime, and target were presented on each trial. A comparison of alternative models of prime-based effects revealed that the best model was one in which all stimuli participated directly in the process of retrieving a response, validating previous modeling efforts. Relations to current theorizing about response congruency effects and models of response selection in task switching are discussed.

Figure 1

Transition data for response time as a function of cue–prime interval and prime–target interval. Error bars represent standard errors of the means. TS = task switch, TR = task repetition.

Figure 2

Congruency data (bars) and predictions of the retrieval model (points) for response time and error rate (panels A and B, respectively). Error bars represent standard errors of the means. CP = cue–prime, PT = prime–target, PR = prime–response, Resp = response, Incong = incongruent, Cong = congruent.

Figure 3

Parameter sensitivity plots for the cue–prime congruency effect and the cue–prime congruency × prime–target congruency interaction effect (panels A and B, respectively) for response time produced by the retrieval model. See text for details. eta_prime-p = η_prime-p; eta_prime-a = η_prime-a.

Figure 3

Parameter sensitivity plots for the cue–prime congruency effect and the cue–prime congruency × prime–target congruency interaction effect (panels A and B, respectively) for response time produced by the retrieval model. See text for details. eta_prime-p = η_prime-p; eta_prime-a = η_prime-a.