Literature DB >> 21299334

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

Darryl W Schneider1, Gordon D Logan.   

Abstract

When task-switching studies use the task-cuing procedure with a 1:1 cue-task mapping, task switching and cue switching are confounded, which is problematic for interpreting switch costs. The use of a 2:1 cue-task mapping is a potential solution to this problem, but it is possible that introducing more cues may also introduce marked changes in task-switching performance. In 5 experiments involving 160 subjects, the authors compared performance with 1:1 and 2:1 mappings across several methodological changes. Differences in switch costs between mappings were small and, in most analyses, nonsignificant. In all experiments, both mappings yielded significant reductions in switch cost across cue-target interval, and there were significant cue-switching effects with the 2:1 mapping. A model of cue encoding fit the data from both mappings about equally well. Overall, task-switching performance was more similar than it was different between mappings, leading the authors to suggest that the use of a 2:1 mapping is a viable solution to the problem associated with a 1:1 mapping. 2011 APA, all rights reserved

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21299334      PMCID: PMC3074508          DOI: 10.1037/a0021967

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


  21 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.  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

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

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

4.  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

5.  Modeling task switching without switching tasks: a short-term priming account of explicitly cued performance.

Authors:  Darryl W Schneider; Gordon D Logan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2005-08

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Dissociating cue-related and task-related processes in task inhibition: evidence from using a 2:1 cue-to-task mapping.

Authors:  Miriam Gade; Iring Koch
Journal:  Can J Exp Psychol       Date:  2008-03

9.  The cuing and priming of cognitive operations.

Authors:  P Sudevan; D A Taylor
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 3.332

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

Authors:  Darryl W Schneider; Gordon D Logan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.051

View more
  13 in total

1.  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

2.  Investigating a method for reducing residual switch costs in cued task switching.

Authors:  Darryl W Schneider
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2016-07

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Partitioning switch costs when investigating task switching in relation to media multitasking.

Authors:  Darryl W Schneider; Haerim Chun
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-02-25

6.  Neural correlates for task switching in the macaque superior colliculus.

Authors:  Jason L Chan; Michael J Koval; Kevin Johnston; Stefan Everling
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Applying novel technologies and methods to inform the ontology of self-regulation.

Authors:  Ian W Eisenberg; Patrick G Bissett; Jessica R Canning; Jesse Dallery; A Zeynep Enkavi; Susan Whitfield-Gabrieli; Oscar Gonzalez; Alan I Green; Mary Ann Greene; Michaela Kiernan; Sunny Jung Kim; Jamie Li; Michael R Lowe; Gina L Mazza; Stephen A Metcalf; Lisa Onken; Sadev S Parikh; Ellen Peters; Judith J Prochaska; Emily A Scherer; Luke E Stoeckel; Matthew J Valente; Jialing Wu; Haiyi Xie; David P MacKinnon; Lisa A Marsch; Russell A Poldrack
Journal:  Behav Res Ther       Date:  2017-10-05

8.  A memory-based model of Hick's law.

Authors:  Darryl W Schneider; John R Anderson
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Modelling response selection in task switching: testing the contingent encoding assumption.

Authors:  Darryl W Schneider; Gordon D Logan
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2013-10-21       Impact factor: 2.143

10.  Electrophysiological evidence for preparatory reconfiguration before voluntary task switches but not cued task switches.

Authors:  Min-Suk Kang; Adrienne Diraddo; Gordon D Logan; Geoffrey F Woodman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.