Task switching versus cue switching: using transition cuing to disentangle sequential effects in task-switching performance

Recent methodological advances have allowed researchers to address confounds in the measurement of task-switch costs in task-switching performance by dissociating cue switching from task switching. For example, in the transition-cuing procedure, which involves presenting cues for task transitions rather than for tasks, cue transitions (cue switches and cue repetitions) and task transitions (task switches and task repetitions) can be examined in a complete factorial design. Transition cuing removes the confound between cue transitions and first-order task transitions, but it introduces a confound between cue transitions and longer task sequences. In the present study, transition cuing was studied with two cues per transition (REPEAT and AGAIN for task repetitions; SWITCH and CHANGE for task switches), enabling a partial deconfounding of cue transitions and task sequences. Two experiments revealed robust sequential effects, with higher order task transitions affecting performance when cue transitions were held constant and with cue transitions affecting performance when task sequences were held constant. Methodological and theoretical implications of these findings for research on task switching are discussed.     

Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure

In two experiments, subjects were given arbitrary letter cues or meaningful word cues that specified the task to be performed on a subsequent target stimulus. Letter and word cues were presented in separate blocks. There were two cues of each type for each task. Three kinds of transitions separated tasks:cue repetitions, in which both the cue and the task repeated;task repetitions, in which the cue changed but the task repeated; andtask alternations, in which both the cue and the task changed. Responses were faster for cue than for task repetitions for both cue types. With word cues, task repetitions were not reliably faster than task alternations. With letter cues, task repetitions were reliably faster than task alternations in the first block but not in the second block. The results suggest that subjects responded to the compound of the cue and the target rather than switching task set between trials.     

What matters in the cued task-switching paradigm: Tasks or cues?

Schneider and Logan (2006) recently showed that cue-switch and task-switch costs are sensitive to the relative probability of cue switches versus task switches. From this they concluded that taskswitch costs reflect priming of cue-cue transitions rather than actual task-switching operations. However, because this design confounded probability of specific cue transitions with probability of task switches, the results could also reflect task-switch-level adjustments. The present experiment (N = 80) pits the critical prediction of the cue-priming account, namely that costs for high-probability cue-cue transitions are smaller than for low-probability cue-cue transitions, against the main prediction of the switch-probability account, namely that switch probability, irrespective of specific cue-cue transitions, determines switch costs. Whereas the cue-priming prediction was rejected, a specific version of the probability account—that subjects are sensitive to the probability of a task switch, given a cue switch—was fully confirmed. Thus, tasks are in fact the critical representational units that determine task-switch cost.     

Task preparation and task repetition: two-component model of task switching.

The switch cost (the disadvantage of performing a new task vs. a repeated task) has been attributed to lack of preparation for the switched task or priming of the repeated task. These sources were examined by manipulating foreknowledge of task transition (repeat or switch), response-to-stimulus interval (RSI), and practice level. Regardless of foreknowledge, the cost decreased with RSI and practice. The reduction was greater with foreknowledge than with no foreknowledge, and the amount of switch cost did not depend on foreknowledge. These results suggest that the switch cost with foreknowledge may consist of both inadequate preparation and repetition benefit but the switch cost with no foreknowledge may reflect repetition benefit only. An ACT-R (adaptive control of thought-rational) model was proposed, accommodating both preparation and priming effect with 2 independent processes: conflict resolution among productions and decay of chunk activation.     

Methodological and empirical issues when dissociating cue-related from task-related processes in the explicit task-cuing procedure

In the explicit cuing version of the task-switching paradigm, each individual task is indicated by a unique task cue. Consequently, a task switch is accompanied by a cue switch. Recently, it has been proposed that priming of cue encoding contributes to the empirically observed switch costs. This proposal was experimentally supported by using a 2:1 mapping of cues to tasks, so that a cue switch does not necessarily imply a task switch. The results indeed suggested a substantial contribution of “cue-switch costs” to task-switch costs. Here we argue that the 2:1 mapping potentially leads to an underestimation of “pure” task-switch costs. To support this argument, we report the results of a new study in which we used “transition cues” that indicate the identity of the current task based on the identity of the preceding task. This new type of cue allows a full factorial manipulation of cue switches and task switches because it includes the condition in which a cue repetition can also indicate a task switch (i.e., when the “switch” cue is repeated). We discuss the methodological implications and argue that the present approach has merits relative to the previously used 2:1 mapping of cues to tasks.     

Unmixing the mixing cost: contributions from dimensional relevance and stimulus-response suppression

When participants repeat the same task in a context in which the task may also switch (a mixed block), performance deteriorates compared to when there is only one task repeating (a pure block). Three experiments were designed to assess how perceptual and motor transitions influenced this mixing cost. Experiment 1 provided three pure block baselines for perceptual and motor transitions. Experiments 2 and 3 examined these transitions in a mixed block. Results show that most of the mixing cost comes from two factors: (a) episodic interference in the mixed block when the stimulus changes and the response repeats, and (b) increased suppression in mixed blocks affecting trials where stimulus-response mappings repeat. We propose that these mechanisms are strategically applied when adopting a sustained "switching set" in mixed blocks. The purpose of this set would be to avoid perseveration errors in the most demanding trials (the task-switching trials), but remaining active during task-repetitions. Results regarding the mixing cost are thus relevant to the assessment of models of task-switching, which at present mainly rely on data from task switch trials.     

Task selection cost asymmetry without task switching

The switch cost asymmetry (i.e., larger costs when switching from a nondominant into a dominant task than vice versa) has been explained in terms of the trial-to-trial carryover of activation levels required for the dominant versus the nondominant task. However, there is an open question about whether an actual switch in task is in fact necessary to obtain a “selection” cost asymmetry. In Experiments 1 and 2, we modified an alternatingruns paradigm to include either long or short response-to-stimulus intervals (RSIs) after each pair of trials (i.e., AA-AA-BB-BB), thereby inducing selection costs not only at the point of a task switch (i.e., AA-BB), but also between same-task pairs (i.e., AA-AA). Using spatially compatible versus incompatible response rules (Experiment 1) and Stroop word versus color naming (Experiment 2), we found asymmetric effects not only at task-change transitions, but also at task-repeat transitions when the RSI was long (presumably inducing frequent losses of set). In Experiments 3A and 3B, a cost asymmetry for long RSIs was obtained even when competing tasks were separated into alternating single task blocks, but not when the tasks were compared in a betweensubjects design. This general pattern cannot be explained by activation carryover models, but is consistent with the idea that the asymmetry arises as a result of interference from long-term memory traces.     

Asymmetric switch cost and backward inhibition: Carryover activation and inhibition in switching between tasks of unequal difficulty.

Asymmetric switch cost, observed when switching between tasks varying in difficulty, shows that the difference between repeat and switch trials is greater when switching to the easier task. Early explanations of this effect attributed this pattern to both positive priming of the difficult task and negative priming of the easier task, but more recent models have focused only on activation processes. The role of inhibition in asymmetric switch cost was examined using backward inhibition, a more direct measure of task-set inhibition. The results indicated asymmetric backward inhibition, with greater sequential inhibition of the easier task (i.e., easy-difficult-easy sequences). Switch costs, however, showed both typical and reversed asymmetry (greater cost when switching from the easy to the difficult task), depending on the relative difficulty of task pairs. This pattern of results indicates that switch costs are attributable to both activation and inhibition processes.     

Exploring temporal dissipation of attention settings in auditory task switching

Using a cued auditory task-switching variant of dichotic listening, we varied the response–cue interval (RCI) to examine temporal dissipation effects. On each trial, participants were presented with two different number words, one spoken by a female speaker and another by a male speaker (dichotic listening), that served as competing targets for a numerical judgment. The gender of the task-relevant speaker was indicated by a visual task cue prior to each trial. Experiment 1A used two different cues for each task (i.e., gender) and showed only small cue repetition benefits (same cue vs. alternate cue) but large auditory switch costs (alternate cue vs. task switch). A replication without immediate cue repetitions (Experiment 1B) showed very similar switch costs, suggesting that immediate cue repetitions play a negligible role for the size of auditory task switch costs. Moreover, switch costs were reduced when the (entirely task-irrelevant) location of the task-relevant speaker changed, relative to when it was unchanged, suggesting an episodic feature-binding component in our dichotic-listening task. Importantly, both experiments showed no effect of RCI on auditory switch costs. Because statistical power for this null effect was reasonably high across experiments (n?=?50), this finding suggests that auditory attention settings do not dissipate quickly over time.     

Episodic and semantic components of the compound-stimulus strategy in the explicit task-cuing procedure

The explicit task-cuing procedure is commonly used to study executive control processes involved in set switching, but performance in this task-switching procedure may be accomplished without switching tasks. Subjects may perform both tasks by using a compound-stimulus strategy, in which subjects encode the cue, encode the target, and use the combination as a compound retrieval cue to choose the appropriate response. We manipulated the number of targets (8, 16,32, or 640) that subjects experienced in a four-cue/two-task procedure to separate episodic and semantic memory retrieval components of the compound-stimulus strategy. Cue repetitions were faster than task repetitions, and task repetitions were only slightly faster than task alternations, suggesting that cue repetition effects account for the bulk of the difference between repetitions and alternations. We found the same effects with all target set sizes. The results are consistent with use of a semantic compound-stimulus strategy.     

Priming or executive control? Associative priming of cue encoding increases “switch costs” in the explicit task-cuing procedure

The explicit task-cuing procedure involves presenting a cue that indicates which task to perform on a target. Responses are typically faster when tasks repeat than when they alternate, and this difference is often interpreted as a measure of the time required for executive control processes to change task set. This article suggests that the difference reflects priming of cue encoding when successive cues are identical or associatively related. Subjects responded to task repetitions more quickly when the cue on the current trial was associatively related to the cue on the previous trial (e.g., day --> night) than when the cues were unrelated (e.g., verb --> night). Models applied to the time course function--generated by manipulating the interval between the onsets of the cue and the target--showed that the facilitation was due to cue encoding, a process that does not require online executive control.     

Dissociating the components of switch cost using two-to-two cue-task mapping

In the task switch paradigm, a switch of task is typically accompanied by a change in task cue. It has been proposed that the performance deficit usually observed when switching tasks is actually the result of changing cues. To test this possibility, we used a 2:2 cue-task mapping in which each cue indicated 2 different tasks. With advance presentation of a cue, the cost associated with changing cues disappeared, though a substantial task switch cost remained. Without advance cues, the relative contributions of task switch cost and cue change cost differed by transition frequencies. The results suggest that task execution contributes to switch cost independent of cue changes.     

No-go trials can modulate switch cost by interfering with effects of task preparation

It has recently been shown that the cost associated with switching tasks is eliminated following ‘no-go’ trials, in which response selection is not completed, suggesting that the switch cost depends on response selection. However, no-go trials may also affect switch costs by interfering with the effects of task preparation that precede response selection. To test this hypothesis we evaluated switch costs following standard go trials with those following two types of non-response trials: no-go trials, for which a stimulus is presented that indicates no response should be made (Experiment 1); and cue-only trials in which no stimulus is presented following the task cue (Experiment 2). We hypothesized that eliminating no-go stimuli would reveal effects of task preparation on the switch cost in cue-only trials. We found no switch cost following no-go trials (Experiment 1), but a reliable switch cost in cue-only trials (i.e., when no-go stimuli were removed; Experiment 2). We conclude that no-go trials can modulate the switch cost, independent of their effect on response selection, by interfering with task preparation, and that the effects of task preparation on switch cost are more directly assessed by cue-only trials.     

Stimulus–response bindings contribute to item switch costs in working memory

In counter updating tasks, responses are typically faster when items repeat than when they change (item switch costs). The present study explored the contribution of stimulus–response bindings to these item switch costs. In two experiments, we orthogonally manipulated the repetition/switch of to-be-counted items and the repetition/switch of required manual responses. Item switch costs were considerably lower when item switches were accompanied by response switches than when accompanied by response repetitions. Experiment 2 showed that, although there was also a smaller contribution from stimulus–stimulus bindings (i.e., shape-location), the major part was due to stimulus-response bindings. These results show that in the widely used standard version of the counter updating task, a considerable portion of item switch costs is caused by the unbinding of stimulus–response bindings rather than by processes of switching items in working memory.     

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

Switch costs in task switching are commonly attributed to an executive control process of task-set reconfiguration, particularly in studies involving the explicit task-cuing procedure. The authors propose an alternative account of explicitly cued performance that is based on 2 mechanisms: priming of cue encoding from residual activation of cues in short-term memory and compound cue retrieval of responses from long-term memory. Their short-term priming account explains the repeated cue encoding benefit, switch cost, reduction in switch cost with preparation time, and other effects. The authors develop a mathematical model of their priming account and fit it to data from 3 experiments, demonstrating that a set of basic psychological processes can produce several effects--including putative switch costs--without switching tasks.     

Task-set inhibition in chunked task sequences

Exploring the hierarchical control relationship between different levels of representation and processing is important for understanding how the mind controls itself. In the present study, the relationship between chunking (a sequence-level process) and task-set inhibition (a task-level process) in the performance of task sequences was investigated to evaluate the hypothesis that within-chunk facilitation reduces then−2 repetition cost (slower performance forn−2 task repetitions than forn−2 task switches) attributed to task-set inhibition. An experiment is reported in which subjects were induced to chunk sequences such thatn−2 repetitions occurred within or between chunks. Direct evidence of chunking was obtained, andn−2 repetition cost was smaller whenn−2 repetitions occurred within chunks than between chunks. These findings are consistent with an elaborated hypothesis that attributes the reduction inn−2 repetition cost to priming of task goals rather than direct modulation of task-set inhibition.     

Out with the old, in with the new: More valid measures of switch cost and retrieval time in the task span procedure

Two experiments provided new measures of switch cost and retrieval time in the task span procedure. In Experiment 1, subjects were given lists of six task names to remember, followed by six targets on which to perform the tasks named in the list. The lists contained alternations and repetitions, and switch costs were estimated by comparing reaction time (RT) on alternation and repetition trials. The experiment also included memory span and single task conditions, so switch costs could be estimated by subtracting the sum of the RT in those conditions from the task span RT, as in the original report (Logan, 2004). The data suggested that the original measure of switch cost was invalid and that the new measure was preferable. In Experiment 2, subjects performed each task on the list twice. Retrieval was required on the first but not on the second trial in each pair. Retrieval time was estimated by comparing the RT on trials that required retrieval with trials that did not require retrieval. This measure was more valid than the RT in the memory span condition of Experiment 1, which was used in the original report.     

Cognitive control in cued task switching with transition cues: Cue processing,task processing,and cue–task transition congruency

We investigated the processes underlying performance during cued task switching with transition cues. To this end, transition cueing and explicit cueing were compared in a design controlling for sequential effects in the two preceding trials in order to further examine the contribution of cue processes, task processes, and cue–task transition congruency during transition cueing. The study confirmed that the task-switch cost in transition cueing is larger than the task-switch cost in explicit cueing and showed that this larger switch cost is mainly due to cue processing. We also successfully decomposed performance in transition cueing into cue processing, task processing, and cue–task transition congruency on both a theoretical (Experiment 1) and an empirical basis (Experiments 2–3). Our empirical dissociation also demonstrates that cue–task transition congruency affects performance during both cue processing and task processing. We discuss the importance of our findings in relation to the different theories on task switching.     

准备时间和预先信息对任务切换的影响

两个实验采用任务线索范式,考察了准备时间和预先信息对任务切换的影响。实验1的准备时间为可预测,实验2的为不可预测,以考察准备时间的可预测性对任务切换的影响。以被试执行重复任务、切到任务和切离任务的正确反应时为主要指标,结果：（1）在准备时间可预测和不可预测两种条件下,准备时间和预先信息之间存在显著交互作用。在可预测条件中,重复和切到任务的反应时随着准备时间的增加而减少,但切到代价无显著变化,切离任务的反应时不受准备时间的影响,切离代价表现出反准备效应;不可预测条件下,三种任务的反应时都随着准备时间的增加而减少,但是切到和切离代价表现出反准备效应;（2）切离任务的反应时和代价显著高于切到任务的反应时和代价;（3）在这两种条件下,都没有出现切换代价的准备效应     

Task practice differentially modulates task-switching performance across the adult lifespan

Cued-trials task-switching paradigms have been used extensively to examine ageing-related changes in cognitive control. Many studies report an increase in mixing cost (i.e., cost of repeating the same task in a single-task vs. a mixed-task block) and a less reliable increase in switch cost (i.e., cost of switching vs. repeating tasks in a mixed-task block) in old as compared to young adults. However, there is substantial variability between studies in the emergence and size of age effects on mixing and/or switch cost. In this study, we examined variation in mixing cost and switch cost as a function of task practice and preparation interval across the adult lifespan (18-79 years) using a paradigm that promotes advance preparation and reduces cue encoding differences between switch and repeat trials. Both preparation interval and task practice modulated mixing cost and switch cost-but task practice mediated the effects of preparation interval and age differentially for mixing cost and switch cost. Mixing cost was consistently larger in older participants, reduced with preparation and varied little with task practice. In contrast, the effect of preparation interval on switch cost varied with task practice. Reduction in switch cost with preparation interval emerged in younger participants by the second practice session and even later in older participants. When fully practiced, older participants showed greater mixing cost but less switch cost than younger participants. Age effects on both mixing cost and switch cost were mediated by changes in processing of repeat trials, indicative of reduced differentiation between switch and repeat trials in mixed-task blocks. This is consistent with reduced cognitive flexibility with increasing age.