바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.28 No.2

Citation Share

Individual Differences in Cognitive Flexibility during Task Switching According to Cognitive Style

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2016, v.28 no.2, pp.241-252
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.2.002


& (2016). Individual Differences in Cognitive Flexibility during Task Switching According to Cognitive Style. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 28(2), 241-252, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.2.002

Abstract

A recent study employing the color-word Stroop task found that object-spatial-verbal cognitive style is closely associated with individual differences in cognitive control processes. Based on these findings, the current study sought to examine whether the same cognitive style is involved in task switching processes between two tasks. Further, we sought to investigate whether it is involved in task-set reconfiguration or task-set inhibition during switching. In doing so, a task switching paradigm including object and verbal tasks was constructed and cognitive style preference scores of the Korean version of the object-spatial imagery and verbal questionnaire were obtained from the participants. The results of the relationship between the switch cost for each task and preference scores for the cognitive style showed that greater verbal style preference was closely related with the lower verbal switch cost whereas the relationship between object style preference and the switch cost was absent. These results were discussed based on task-set reconfiguration.

keywords
과제전환, 인지양식, 과제세트 재구성, task switching, cognitive style, task-set reconfiguration

Reference

1.

신경희, 김초복 (2013). 대상, 공간 및 언어인지양식에 따른 작업기억 과제 수행의개인차. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 25(4), 539-563.

2.

허민영, 김초복 (2014). 신경효율성의 개인차에관한 고찰: 인지양식과 과제 특성을 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 26(3), 171-195.

3.

Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. L. (1994). Shifting Intentional Set: Exploring the Dynamic Control of Tasks. Attention and Performance Xv, 15, 421-452.

4.

Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (1999). Task-switching:Positive and negative priming of task-set. Attention, Space and Action: Studies in Cognitive Neuroscience, 273-396.

5.

Anderson, K. L., Casey, M. B., Thompson, W. L., Burrage, M. S., Pezaris, E., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2008). Performance on middle school geometry problems with geometry clues matched to three different cognitive styles. Mind, Brain, and Education, 2(4), 188-197.

6.

Blajenkova, O., Kozhevnikov, M., & Motes, M. A. (2006). Object-spatial imagery: New self-report imagery questionnaire. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 239-263.

7.

Blazhenkova, O., & Kozhevnikov, M. (2009). The new object-spatial-verbal cognitive style model:Theory and measurement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(5), 638-663.

8.

Braver, T. S., Reynolds, J. R., & Donaldson, D. I. (2003). Neural mechanisms of transient and sustained cognitive control during task switching. Neuron, 39(4), 713-726.

9.

De Jong, R., Berendsen, E., & Cools, R. (1999). Goal neglect and inhibitory limitations:Dissociable causes of interference effects in conflict situations. Acta Psychologica, 101(2), 379-394.

10.

Gevins, A., & Smith, M. E. (2000). Neurophysiological measures of working memory and individual differences in cognitive ability and cognitive style. Cerebral Cortex, 10(9), 829-839.

11.

Gilbert, S. J., & Shallice, T. (2002). Task switching: A PDP model. Cognitive Psychology, 44(3), 297-337.

12.

Kozhevnikov, M., Hegarty, M., & Mayer, R. E. (2002). Revising the visualizer-verbalizer dimension: Evidence for two types of visualizers. Cognition and Instruction, 20(1), 47-77.

13.

Kozhevnikov, M., Kosslyn, S., & Shephard, J. (2005). Spatial versus object visualizers: A new characterization of visual cognitive style. Memory & Cognition, 33(4), 710-726.

14.

Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393.

15.

Meier, B., & Rothen, N. (2013). Grapheme-color synaesthesia is associated with a distinct cognitive style. Frontiers in Psychology, 4.

16.

Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41(3), 211-253.

17.

Messick, S. (1976). Personality consistencies in cognition and creativity. Individuality in Learning, 4, 22.

18.

Meuter, R. F., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1), 25-40.

19.

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134-140.

20.

Monsell, S., Sumner, P., & Waters, H. (2003). Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches. Memory &Cognition, 31(3), 327-342.

21.

Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 493.

22.

Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt.

23.

Pazzaglia, F., & Moè, A. (2013). Cognitive styles and mental rotation ability in map learning. Cognitive Processing, 14(4), 391-399.

24.

Pitta-Pantazi, D., Sophocleous, P., & Christou, C. (2013). Spatial visualizers, object visualizers and verbalizers: Their mathematical creative abilities. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 45(2), 199-213.

25.

Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207.

26.

Shin, G., & Kim, C. (2015). Neural correlates of cognitive style and flexible cognitive control. Neuroimage, 113, 78-85.

27.

Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 601.

28.

Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: the role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 455.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy