Literature DB >> 21037168

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

Ulrich Mayr1.   

Abstract

A large component of response time switch costs in the cued task-switching paradigm is linked to cue changes without task changes, suggesting costs might reflect passive priming rather than endogenous control. In contrast, the task span procedure requires subjects to guide task selection via sequences of memorized task cues and therefore may be better suited to reflect endogenous switch processes (Logan, 2004). The present experiments combined the task span procedure with a 2:1 mapping between cues and tasks, allowing separation of cue-switch costs from true task-switch costs. Replicating findings with the cued task-switching paradigm, results showed both substantial cue-switch costs and actual task-switch costs (Experiments 1 and 2) as well as sensitivity of cue-switch costs, but not of task-switch costs, to opportunity for preparation (Experiment 2). Apparently, simple action plans use "surface level" phonological or articulatory codes that contain no task information. These results suggest that the distinction between cue-related and task-related processes is critical no matter whether tasks are cued exogenously or endogenously.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21037168     DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.5.693

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  22 in total

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

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

2.  Working memory and the control of action: evidence from task switching.

Authors:  A Baddeley; D Chincotta; A Adlam
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2001-12

3.  The role of external cues for endogenous advance reconfiguration in task switching.

Authors:  Iring Koch
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-06

4.  Nonintentional task set activation: evidence from implicit task sequence learning.

Authors:  Alex Gotler; Nachshon Meiran; Joseph Tzelgov
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-12

5.  Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process?

Authors:  Stephen Monsell; Guy A Mizon
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Interpreting instructional cues in task switching procedures: the role of mediator retrieval.

Authors:  Gordon D Logan; Darryl W Schneider
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  On how to be unpredictable: evidence from the voluntary task-switching paradigm.

Authors:  Ulrich Mayr; Theodor Bell
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-09

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

Authors:  Catherine M Arrington; Gordon D Logan; Darryl W Schneider
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Is task switching nothing but cue priming? Evidence from ERPs.

Authors:  Kerstin Jost; Ulrich Mayr; Frank Rösler
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.282

10.  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

View more
  2 in total

1.  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

2.  Encoding and choice in the task span paradigm.

Authors:  Kaitlin M Reiman; Starla M Weaver; Catherine M Arrington
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2014-03-14
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.