바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

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

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / 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


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

Reference

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.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology