Literature DB >> 17470002

Separating cue encoding from target processing in the explicit task-cuing procedure: are there "true" task switch effects?

Catherine M Arrington1, Gordon D Logan, Darryl W Schneider.   

Abstract

Six experiments were conducted to separate cue encoding from target processing in explicitly cued task switching to determine whether task switch effects could be separated from cue encoding effects and to determine the nature of the representations produced by cue encoding. Subjects were required to respond to the cue, indicating which cue was presented (Experiments 1, 3a, and 4a) or which task was cued (Experiments 2, 3b, and 4b), before performing the cued task on the target. Cue encoding was successfully separated from target processing when the cue response indicated which task was cued but not when it indicated which cue was presented. Task switch effects were found when this separation was successful, suggesting that there are "true" task switch effects independent of cue encoding. Analysis of the conditions required for successful separation suggested that cue encoding results in a semantic categorical representation of the task to be performed rather than verbal or phonological representations of individual cues. Implications for the authors' past modeling of task-switching performance are discussed.

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17470002     DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.484

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn        ISSN: 0278-7393            Impact factor:   3.051


  22 in total

Review 1.  The many faces of preparatory control in task switching: reviewing a decade of fMRI research.

Authors:  Hannes Ruge; Sharna Jamadar; Uta Zimmermann; Frini Karayanidis
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-10-14       Impact factor: 5.038

2.  The surface structure and the deep structure of sequential control: what can we learn from task span switch costs?

Authors:  Ulrich Mayr
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2010-10

3.  Cue response dissociates inhibitory processes: task identity information is related to backward inhibition but not to competitor rule suppression.

Authors:  Shirley Regev; Nachshon Meiran
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2016-01-13

4.  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

5.  Anticipatory reconfiguration elicited by fully and partially informative cues that validly predict a switch in task.

Authors:  Frini Karayanidis; Elise L Mansfield; Kasey L Galloway; Janette L Smith; Alexander Provost; Andrew Heathcote
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.282

6.  Cue-switch costs in task-switching: cue priming or control processes?

Authors:  James A Grange; George Houghton
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2010-09

7.  Task-switching performance with 1:1 and 2:1 cue-task mappings: not so different after all.

Authors:  Darryl W Schneider; Gordon D Logan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.051

8.  Working memory capacity modulates task performance but has little influence on task choice.

Authors:  Karin M Butler; Catherine M Arrington; Christina Weywadt
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2011-05

9.  Cue-switch effects do not rely on the same neural systems as task-switch effects.

Authors:  Wouter De Baene; Marcel Brass
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.282

10.  Task switching with a 2:1 cue-to-task mapping: separating cue disambiguation from task-rule retrieval.

Authors:  Thomas Kleinsorge
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2011-05-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.