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

  • P-ISSN1226-9654
  • E-ISSN2733-466X
  • KCI

ISSN : 1226-9654

논문 상세

이전 다음
논문 투고

Vol.32 No.4

Citation Share

과제세트 관성과 재구성이 단서 및 자발적 과제전환의 전환비용에 미치는 영향

The Effects of Task-Set Inertia and Reconfiguration on Switch Costs in Cued and Voluntary Task Switching Paradigms

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물 / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2020, v.32 no.4, pp.319-328
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.4.003
허주연 (경북대학교 심리학과)
김초복 (경북대학교)
허주연, & 김초복. (2020). 과제세트 관성과 재구성이 단서 및 자발적 과제전환의 전환비용에 미치는 영향. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 32(4), 319-328, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2020.32.4.003

초록

인지적 유연성을 나타내는 전환비용은 현재의 과제를 준비하는 과제세트 재구성과 이전 과제세트의 영향인 과제세트 관성에 의해 나타난다. 본 연구는 단서 과제전환과 자발적 과제전환의 전환비용에 각각 단서 처리와 과제 선택 과정이 추가적으로 반영될 가능성을 배제함으로써 전환비용에 대한 과제세트 재구성 및 과제세트 관성의 영향을 정확히 평가하고자 하였다. 이를 위해, 참가자들에게 과제전환 각 절차에서 과제 단서와 선택 단서에 대해 반응하도록 하고, 단서를 기준으로 이전 과제세트의 영향과 현재 과제에 대한 준비기간을 조작하였다. 실험 결과, 자발적 과제전환의 전환비용은 준비시간이 증가할 때 유의하게 감소하였으나 과제세트 관성과는 관계가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 반면 단서 과제전환에서는 전환비용이 과제세트 관성과 함께 감소하였으며, 준비시간과는 관련이 없는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 두 과제전환 절차를 통해 인지적 유연성의 서로 다른 측면을 구체적으로 규명할 수 있음을 확인한 점에서 중요한 의의를 가진다.

keywords
cued task switching, voluntary task switching, task-set inertia, task-set reconfiguration, 단서 과제전환, 자발적 과제전환, 과제세트 재구성, 과제세트 관성

Abstract

The switch cost, which represents cognitive flexibility, is known to be caused by task-set reconfiguration and task-set inertia. This study aimed to specifically evaluate the contributions of these two cognitive processes to switch costs in cued and voluntary task switching paradigms by excluding additional cost induced from cue- and task-selection processes. For this purpose, we developed experimental tasks that required participants to respond both to the task cue and choice cue, and the task-set inertia and preparation times were manipulated based on the cue responses. Results showed that the switch cost in the voluntary task switching decreased as preparation times increased whereas it was unrelated with task-set inertia. Reversely, the switch cost in the cued task switching decreased when task-set inertia decreased but it was not associated with preparation times. This study suggests that different aspects of cognitive flexibility can be identified through the two task switching procedures.

keywords
cued task switching, voluntary task switching, task-set inertia, task-set reconfiguration, 단서 과제전환, 자발적 과제전환, 과제세트 재구성, 과제세트 관성

참고문헌

1.

Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovit ch (Eds.), In Attention and performance XV. (pp. 421-452). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.

2.

Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Voluntary task switching: Chasing the elusive homunculus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(4), 683-702.

3.

Arrington, C. M., Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2007). Separating cue encoding from target processing in the explicit task-cuing procedure: Are there “true” task switch effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 484-502.

4.

Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2004). The Cost of a Voluntary task switch. Psychological Science, 15(9), 610-615.

5.

Baddeley, A., Chincotta, D., & Adlam, A. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: Evidence from task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 130(4), 641-657.

6.

Demanet, J., & Liefooghe, B. (2014). Component processes in voluntary task switching. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(5), 843-860.

7.

Demanet, J., Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2010). Voluntary task switching under load:Contribution of top-down and bottom-up factors in goal-directed behavior. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(3), 387-393.

8.

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135-168.

9.

Liefooghe, B. (2017). The contribution of task-choice response selection to the switch cost in voluntary task switching. Acta Psychologica, 178, 32-40.

10.

Liefooghe, B., Demanet, J., & Vandierendonck, A. (2010). Persisting activation in voluntary task switching: It all depends on the instructions. Psychonomic Bulletin &Review, 17(3), 381-386.

11.

Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(3), 575-599.

12.

Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393-434.

13.

Mayr, U., & Bell, T. (2006). On how to be unpredictable:Evidence from the voluntary task-switching paradigm. Psychological Science, 17(9), 774-780.

14.

Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3), 362-372.

15.

Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1423-1442.

16.

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

17.

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

18.

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), 493-516.

19.

Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 247-259.

20.

Regev, S., & Meiran, N. (2017). Cue response dissociates inhibitory processes: Task identity information is related to backward inhibition but not to competitor rule suppression. Psychological Research, 81(1), 168-181.

21.

Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207-231.

22.

Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763-797.

23.

Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Modeling task switching without switching tasks: A short-Term priming account of explicitly cued performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134(3), 343-367.

24.

Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 601-626.

한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물

논문 투고 OA 정책