Literature DB >> 12184555

Limitations in advance task preparation: switching the relevant stimulus dimension in speeded same-different comparisons.

Nachshon Meiran1, Hadas Marciano.   

Abstract

When participants switch between relevant stimulus dimensions in speeded classification tasks, task-switching cost is reduced by advance preparation. Previous studies in which speeded classification tasks were used have suggested that this effect results from attending to the relevant stimulus dimension. Because selective attention to the relevant stimulus dimension in same-different judgments is relatively poor (e.g., Santee & Egeth, 1980), it was predicted that advance task preparation for a shift in the relevant stimulus dimension would be compromised. This prediction was borne out in two experiments comparing dimension shifts (shape vs.fill) with task rule shifts (same? vs. different? and shifts in the mapping of right-left keys to yes and no responses (yes-no vs. no-yes). The results indicate that advance attentional selection of the relevant dimension is an optional preparatory strategy in task switching, employed only in conditions enabling flexible refocusing of attention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12184555     DOI: 10.3758/bf03194955

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mem Cognit        ISSN: 0090-502X


  25 in total

1.  Age differences in the selection of mental sets: the role of inhibition, stimulus ambiguity, and response-set overlap.

Authors:  U Mayr
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2001-03

2.  Changing internal constraints on action: the role of backward inhibition.

Authors:  U Mayr; S W Keele
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2000-03

3.  Stroop and Garner effects in and out of Posner's beam: reconciling two conceptions of selective attention.

Authors:  L Shalev; D Algom
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Modeling cognitive control in task-switching.

Authors:  N Meiran
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2000

5.  Goal neglect and inhibitory limitations: dissociable causes of interference effects in conflict situations.

Authors:  R De Jong; E Berendsen; R Cools
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  1999-04

Review 6.  The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning.

Authors:  B Hommel; J Müsseler; G Aschersleben; W Prinz
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 12.579

7.  Identifying stimuli of different perceptual categories in pure and mixed blocks of trials: evidence for stimulus-driven switch costs.

Authors:  S A Los
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  1999-11

8.  On the robustness of the additive factors stage structure in blocked and mixed choice reaction designs.

Authors:  L L Van Duren; A F Sanders
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  1988-10

9.  Effect of irrelevant differences as a function of the relations between relevant and irrelevant dimensions in the same-different task.

Authors:  T Watanabe
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1988-02       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Determinants of attention to local and global features of visual forms.

Authors:  L M Ward
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1982-08       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  10 in total

1.  Tasks of a feather flock together: similarity effects in task switching.

Authors:  Catherine M Arrington; Erik M Altmann; Thomas H Carr
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-07

2.  The preparation effect in task switching: carryover of SOA.

Authors:  Erik M Altmann
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-01

3.  Automatic activation of task-related representations in task shifting.

Authors:  Marco Steinhauser; Ronald Hübner
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2007-01

4.  Advance task preparation reduces task error rate in the cuing task-switching paradigm.

Authors:  Nachshon Meiran; Alex Daichman
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2005-10

5.  Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): a theoretical framework for task switching.

Authors:  Nachshon Meiran; Yoav Kessler; Esther Adi-Japha
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2008-03-19

6.  Task switching is not cue switching.

Authors:  Erik M Altmann
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2006-12

7.  Shifting set about task switching: behavioral and neural evidence for distinct forms of cognitive flexibility.

Authors:  Susan M Ravizza; Cameron S Carter
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2008-06-14       Impact factor: 3.139

8.  Motor outputs in a multitasking network: relative contributions of inputs and experience-dependent network states.

Authors:  Allyson K Friedman; Yuriy Zhurov; Bjoern Ch Ludwar; Klaudiusz R Weiss
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-10-21       Impact factor: 2.714

9.  Common and distinct mechanisms of cognitive flexibility in prefrontal cortex.

Authors:  Chobok Kim; Nathan F Johnson; Sara E Cilles; Brian T Gold
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-03-30       Impact factor: 6.167

10.  Mixing costs and switch costs when switching stimulus dimensions in serial predictions.

Authors:  Andrea M Philipp; Claudia Kalinich; Iring Koch; Ricarda I Schubotz
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2008-04-29
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.