바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

ACOMS+ 및 학술지 리포지터리 설명회

  • 한국과학기술정보연구원(KISTI) 서울분원 대회의실(별관 3층)
  • 2024년 07월 03일(수) 13:30
사전등록 바로가기
 

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.23 No.3
Citation Share

자발적 과제전환의 이득 효과

Benefits of voluntary task switching in multi-tasking

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2011, v.23 no.3, pp.339-354
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2011.23.3.003
신홍임 (연세대학교)
김민식 (연세대학교)
신홍임, & 김민식. (2011). 자발적 과제전환의 이득 효과. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 23(3), 339-354, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2011.23.3.003
  • 다운로드 수
  • 조회수
PDF 다운로드

초록

두 가지의 상이한 과제수행에서 나타나는 비대칭적 전환손실은 과제간섭으로 인한 손실을 알 수 있는 방법이다. 본 연구에서는 과제간섭손실이 실험참가자의 자발적인 과제전환을 통해 감소될 수 있는지를 알아보기 위해 과제전환손실을 자발적 과제전환과 비자발적 과제전환의 패러다임을 토대로 비교하고, 과제전환손실과 작업기억용량간의 관계를 분석하였다. 참가자(N=33)에게 한국어 또는 영어로 숫자과제를 제시한 후, 자발적 과제전환에서는 매 시행마다 두 가지의 과제 중 한 과제를 우연의 순서에 따라 스스로 선택하여 수행하도록 하고, 비자발적 과제전환에서는 두 가지의 과제 중 외부로부터 단서로 제시되는 특정과제를 수행하도록 지시하였다. 실험결과에서는 자발적 과제전환의 조건에서 비자발적 과제전환의 조건보다 전반적으로 오답율이 낮았으며, 오답율에 대한 비대칭적 전환손실이 자발적 과제전환에서는 관찰되지 않았다. 이것은 자발적 과제전환에서 매 시행마다 과제를 무선적으로 선택하도록 했을 때, 이전 과제가 현재 수행하는 과제에 끼치는 영향이 최소화되어, 비자발적 과제전환에 비해 과제간섭손실이 적어짐을 보여주는 결과로 해석할 수 있다. 또한 과제전환손실과 작업기억용량의 부적 상관관계가 유의하여, 작업기억용량이 적을수록 과제전환손실이 크게 나타났다. 이 결과는 현재 과제의 수행에 불필요한 정보의 활성화를 억제하는 능력이 과제수행도에 중요함을 보여준다. 후속연구에서는 과제전환손실을 감소시킬 수 있는 방안에 대한 더 심층적인 탐색을 통해 다양한 과제수행의 상황에서 성공적인 과제수행을 위해 필요한 요인들을 파악해야 할 것이다.

keywords
자발적 과제전환, 비대칭적 전환손실, 과제간섭, 작업기억, voluntary task switching, asymmetric switch costs, task interference, working memory

Abstract

This study examined benefits of voluntary task switching compared to non-voluntary task switching. Participants(N=33) performed number tasks, in which they decided whether a number is bigger than 5. In the condition of voluntary task switching, two numbers were always presented simultaneously in English and in Korean. The participants needed to choose just one number voluntarily. In the condition of non-voluntary task switching, the participants were required to react only to the cued number of the two presented numbers. We hypothesized that no asymmetric switch costs would be observed in the voluntary task switching, if the selection of random task sequences inhibits the interference from the previously performed task. In addition, we examined relationships between working memory capacities and switch costs. The results showed that no asymmetric switch costs for error rates were observed in the voluntary task switching, while asymmetric costs for error rates were found to be significant in the non-voluntary task switching. Additionally, the working memory capacities and switch costs were negatively correlated, which indicated the importance of inhibition of irrelevant information for effective multitasking. Implications of the outcomes for task switching are discussed.

keywords
자발적 과제전환, 비대칭적 전환손실, 과제간섭, 작업기억, voluntary task switching, asymmetric switch costs, task interference, working memory

참고문헌

1.

Altmann, E. M. (2004). The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA. Memory & Cognition, 32, 153-163.

2.

Arbuthnott, K. D. (2008). Asymmetric switch cost and backward inhibition: Carryover activation and inhibition in switching between tasks of unequal difficulty. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 91-100.

3.

Arrington, C. M., & Yates, M. M. (2009). The role of attentional networks in voluntary task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 660-665.

4.

Arrington, C. M. (2008). The effect of stimulus availability on task choice in voluntary task switching. Memory & Cognition, 36, 991-997.

5.

Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2004). The cost of a voluntary task switch. Psychological Science, 15, 610-615.

6.

Arrington, C. M., Weaver, S. M., & Pauker, R. L. (2010). Stimulus-based priming of task choice during voluntary task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 36, 1060-1067.

7.

Baddeley, A., Emslie, H., Kolodny, J., & Duncan, J. (1998). Random generation and the executive control of working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51A, 819-852.

8.

Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual sppech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 491-511.

9.

Cragg, L., & Nation, K. (2010). Language and the development of cognitive control. Topics in Cognitive Science, 631-642.

10.

Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the efficiency and the independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 340-347.

11.

Fischer, R., Schubert, T., & Liepelt, R. (2007). Accessory stimuli modulate effects of nonconscious priming. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, 9-22.

12.

Garry, M., & Polaschek, D. L. (2000). Imagination and Memory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 6-10.

13.

Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169-183.

14.

Kessler, Y., Shencer, Y., & Meiran, N. (2009). Choosing to switch: Spontaneous task switching despite associated behavioral costs. Acta Psychologica, 131, 120-128.

15.

Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching-a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849-874.

16.

Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuh, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 1-14.

17.

Lenartowicz, A., Yeung, N., & Cohen, D. C. (2011). No-go trials can modulate switch cost by interfering with effects of task preparation. Psychological Research, 75, 66-76.

18.

Liefooghe, B., Demanet, J., & Vandierendonck, A. (2010). Persisting activation in voluntary task switching: It all depends on the instructions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 381-386.

19.

Mayr, U., & Bell, T. (2006). On how to be unpredictable: Evidence from the voluntary task-switching paradigm. Psychological Science, 17, 774-780.

20.

Mayr, U., & Kliegel, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 362-372.

21.

Philipp, A. M., Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Inhibitory processes in language switching? Evidence from switching language-defined response sets. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 395-416.

22.

Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.

23.

Sharot, T., Velasquez, C. M., & Dolan, R. J. (2011). Do decisions shape preference? Evidence from blind choice. Psychological Science, 21, 1231-1235.

24.

Schneider, W., Eschmann, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime user's guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools, Inc.

25.

Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 92-105.

26.

Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127-154.

27.

Unsworth, N., Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498-505.

28.

Watson, J. M., Bunting, M. F., Poole, B. J., & Conway, A. R. A. (2005). Individual differences in susceptibility in the Deese- Roediger-McDermott paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 76-85.

29.

Yeung, N. & Monsell. S. (2003). The effects of recent practice on task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 919-936.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책