바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.23 No.3

Citation Share

Benefits of voluntary task switching in multi-tasking

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / 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


& (2011). Benefits of voluntary task switching in multi-tasking. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 23(3), 339-354, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2011.23.3.003

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

Reference

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.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy