Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Proactive control of irrelevant task rules during cued task switching

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In task-switching paradigms, participants are often slower on incongruent than congruent trials, a pattern known as the task-rule congruency effect. This effect suggests that irrelevant task rules or associated responses may be retrieved automatically in spite of task cues. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether the task-rule congruency effect may be modulated via manipulations intended to induce variation in proactive control. Manipulating the proportion of congruent to incongruent trials strongly influenced the magnitude of the task-rule congruency effect. The effect was significantly reduced in a mostly incongruent list relative to a mostly congruent list, a pattern that was observed for not only biased but also 50 % congruent items. This finding implicates a role for global attentional control processes in the task-rule congruency effect. In contrast, enhancing the preparation of relevant (cued) task rules by the provision of a monetary incentive substantially reduced mixing costs but did not affect the task-rule congruency effect. These patterns support the view that there may be multiple routes by which proactive control can influence task-switching performance; however, only select routes appear to influence the automatic retrieval of irrelevant task rules.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Generalized eta squared is a more conservative estimate of effect size than partial eta squared. Generalized eta squared is additionally reported because some have suggested that it may facilitate a more common framework for effect size that can be compared across experiments of varying types (Bakeman, 2005; Olejnik & Algina, 2003).

  2. Relevant material for this paper can be accessed via Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/fveqb/. This repository contains the raw data for Experiments 1–3 as well as a summary document detailing all of the analyses conducted by T.S.B. for the manuscript, using the R statistical language, and summarized via R Markdown. This document should provide the code needed to reproduce the relevant results contained within the manuscript for each experiment. Please note that this material has not been peer-reviewed.

  3. We additionally conducted a more sophisticated regression approach that included effects of prior trial congruency up to five trials back. The results confirmed the analysis of the effects of previous trial congruency (in this and all other experiments). Notably, this approach allowed us to examine the effects of prior congruency selectively on the unbiased trials in Experiment 2 and none of the effects of local conflict were reliable in the MC or MI list.

  4. In addition to the exceptions noted in the text, for purposes unrelated to the present experiment, we presented half of the trials in the single and mixed-task blocks for both the baseline and incentive blocks in the upper portion of the screen and the other half in the lower portion of the screen. Presentation of stimuli and tasks was perfectly balanced across the two locations (i.e., each location was mostly congruent). We also asked participants to perform a secondary task in which they had to press the “y” key anytime the letter F or the number 5 occurred regardless of what task was cued during the mixed-task blocks. There were 11 trials of this nature. It was stressed that this task was secondary and it was most important for participants to perform the primary task well and try to earn an incentive when possible. Because the magnitude of the TRCE was extremely similar in Experiment 3 and in Experiment 1, which employed neither of these design features, we do not believe they had any influence on the primary results (cf. Kessler & Meiran, 2010, finding that holding in mind irrelevant task rules, such as those of the secondary task, does not affect the TRCE; see also Rubin & Meiran, 2005, finding that holding multiple stimulus-response rules in working memory does not affect mixing cost).

  5. We performed two supplementary analyses to examine whether a speed-accuracy tradeoff (SAT) was responsible for the incentive-driven shifts in performance. Neither the approach of plotting a cumulative accuracy distribution nor the Heitz (2014) approach of examining macro-SAT and conditional accuracy functions supported the assumption that a SAT was driving the primary patterns pertaining to incentive-related changes in performance (i.e., faster responding and reduction in mixing cost for RT on non-incentive trials in incentive compared to baseline block). These analyses were instead consistent with a non-specific increase in errors in the incentive block.

  6. The relatively long ISIs used in the present experiments may also explain why switch costs were relatively small. The relatively long cue-to-stimulus interval provided ample time for preparation of the current task set, while at the same time the relatively long response-to-cue interval allowed for dissipation of the previous set. Both may have served to reduce switch costs.

References

  • Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Switching intentional set: exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance, XV (pp. 421–452). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Askren, M. K. A. (2010). You can’t have it both ways: An examination of congruency effects in task switching. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.

  • Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 379–384.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blais, C., & Bunge, S. (2010). Behavioral and neural evidence for item-specific performance monitoring. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22, 2758–2767.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blais, C., Harris, M. B., Guerrero, J. V., & Bunge, S. A. (2012). Rethinking the role of automaticity in cognitive control. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 268–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blais, C., Robidoux, S., Risko, E. F., & Besner, D. (2007). Item-specific adaptation and the conflict monitoring hypothesis: a computational model. Psychological Review, 114, 1076–1086.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 76–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braverman, A., & Meiran, N. (2015). Conflict control in task conflict and response conflict. Psychological Research, 79, 238–248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bugg, J. M. (2012). Dissociating levels of cognitive control: the case of Stroop interference. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 302–309. doi:10.1177/0963721412453586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bugg, J. M. (2014). Conflict-triggered top-down control: default mode, last resort, or no such thing? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 567–587. doi:10.1037/a0035032.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bugg, J. M., & Chanani, S. (2011). List-wide control is not entirely elusive: evidence from picture-word Stroop. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18, 930–936. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0112-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bugg, J. M., & Crump, M. J. C. (2012). In support of a distinction between voluntary and stimulus-driven control: a review of the literature on proportion congruent effects. Frontiers in Psychology: Cognition, 3, 1–16. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bugg, J. M., Diede, N. T., Cohen-Shikora, E. R., & Szelmecy, D. (2015). Expectations and experience: dissociable bases for cognitive control? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. doi:10.1037/xlm0000106.

  • Bugg, J. M., & Hutchison, K. A. (2013). Converging evidence for control of color-word Stroop interference at the item level. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 433–449. doi:10.1037/a0029145.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Chanani, S. (2011a). Why it is too early to lose control in accounts of item-specific proportion congruency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 844–859. doi:10.1037/a0019957.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bugg, J. M., Jacoby, L. L., & Toth, J. (2008). Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory and Cognition, 36, 1484–1494. doi:10.3758/MC.36.8.1484.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bugg, J. M., McDaniel, M. A., Scullin, M. K., & Braver, T. S. (2011b). Revealing list-level control in the Stroop task by uncovering its benefits and a cost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1595–1606. doi:10.1037/a0024670.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chiew, K. S., & Braver, T. S. (2013). Temporal dynamics of motivation-cognitive control interactions revealed by high-resolution pupillometry. Frontiers in Psychology,. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00015.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, R. (2000). An intention–activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Pisapia, N., & Braver, T. S. (2006). A model of dual control mechanisms through anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex interactions. Neurocomputing, 69, 1322–1326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dishon-Berkovits, M., & Algom, D. (2000). The Stroop effect: It is not the robust phenomenon that you have thought it to be. Memory and Cognition, 28, 1437–1449.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Egner, T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 380–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagot, C. (1994). Chronometric investigations of task switching. Unpublished Dissertation, University of California-San Diego, San Diego, CA.

  • Frings, C., & Rothermund, K. (2011). To be or not to be…included in an event file: integration and retrieval of distractors in stimulus-response episodes is influenced by perceptual grouping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 1209–1227.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task-set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: control of cognitive processes (pp. 331–355). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation and responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 480–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heitz, R. P. (2014). The speed-accuracy tradeoff: history, physiology, methodology, and behavior. Frontiers in Neuroscience,. doi:10.3389/fnins.2014.00150.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1994). Spontaneous decay of response-code activation. Psychological Research, 56, 261–268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison, K. A. (2011). The interactive effects of listwide control, item-based control, and working memory capacity on Stroop performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 851–860.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and switch. Archives of Psychology, Whole No. 89.

  • Jimura, K., & Braver, T. S. (2010). Age-related shifts in brain activity dynamics during task switching. Cerebral Cortex, 20, 1420–1431. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jimura, K., Locke, H. S., & Braver, T. S. (2010). Prefontal cortex mediation of cognitive enhancement in rewarding motivational contexts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 8871–8876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, Y., & Meiran, N. (2010). The reaction time task-rule congruency effect is not affected by working memory load: further support for the activated long-term memory hypothesis. Psychological Research, 74, 388–399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesel, A., Wendt, M., & Peters, A. (2007). Task switching: on the origins of response congruency effects. Psychological Research, 71, 117–125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: a review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17, 1–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, D. S., & Jacoby, L. L. (1994). Stroop process dissociations: the relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 219–234.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D. (1980). Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: theory and data. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 523–553.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Zbrodoff, N. J. (1979). When it helps to be misled: facilitative effects of increasing the frequency of conflicting stimuli in a Stroop –like task. Memory and Cognition, 7, 166–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J., & Williamson, J. (1984). Strategies in the color-word Stroop task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 135–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, D., & Mitterer, J. O. (1982). Selective and divided attention in a Stroop task. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 684–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1124–1140.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (2000). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234–249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (2005). Task rule congruency and Simon-like effects in switching between spatial tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1023–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., Hsieh, S., & Dimov, E. (2010). Resolving task rule incongruence during task switching by competitor rule suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 992–1002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., & Kessler, Y. (2008). The task rule congruency effect in task switching reflects activated long term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 137–157.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., Kessler, Y., & Adi-Japha, E. (2008). Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): a theoretical framework for task switching. Psychological Research, 72, 473–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Melara, R. D., & Algom, D. (2003). Driven by information: a tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychological Review, 110, 422–471.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task cueing paradigm measure an “endogenous” task set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 493–516.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwenhuis, S., & Monsell, S. (2002). Residual costs in task switching: testing the failure-to- engage hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 86–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olejnik, S., & Algina, J. (2003). Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological Methods, 8, 434–447.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, O., & Meiran, N. (2005). On the origins of the task mixing cost in the cuing task-switching paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1477–1491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruge, H., Jamadar, S., Zimmerman, U., & Karayanidis, F. (2013). The many faces of preparatory control in task switching: reviewing a decade of fMRI research. Human Brain Mapping, 34, 12–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. R. (2013). Temporal learning and list-level proportion congruency: conflict adaptation or learning when to respond? PLoS One,. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.008232012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. R. (2014). List-level transfer effects in temporal learning: further complications for the list-level proportion congruent effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 373–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. R., & Besner, D. (2008). The Stroop effect: Why proportion congruence has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 514–523.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. W. (2014). Isolating a mediated route for response congruency effects in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/xlm0000049.

  • Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Modeling task switching without switching tasks: a short-term priming account of explicitly cued performance. Psychology: General, 134, 343––367.

  • Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2010). The target of task switching. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 129–133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cueing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 89–103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Toth, J. P., Levine, B., Stuss, D. T., Oh, A., Winocur, G., & Meiran, N. (1995). Dissociation of processes underlying spatial SR compatibility: evidence for the independent influence of what and where. Consciousness and Cognition, 4(4), 483–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tzelgov, J. (1997). Specifying the relations between automaticity and consciousness: a theoretical note. Consciousness and Cognition, 6, 441–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verguts, T., & Notebaert, W. (2008). Hebbian learning of cognitive control: dealing with specific and nonspecific adaptation. Psychological Review, 115, 518–525.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long term priming: role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 361–413.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waszak, F., Pfister, R., & Kiesel, A. (2013). Top-down versus bottom-up: when instructions overcome automatic retrieval. Psychological Research, 77, 611–617.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, M., & Kiesel, A. (2008). The impact of stimulus-specific practice and task instructions on response congruency effects between tasks. Psychological Research, 72, 425–432.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, M., & Luna-Rodriguez, A. (2009). Conflict-frequency affects flanker-interference. Experimental Psychology, 56, 206–217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • West, R., & Baylis, G. C. (1998). Effect of increased response dominance and contextual disintegration on the Stroop interference effect in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 13, 206–217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yamaguchi, M., & Proctor, R. W. (2011). Automaticity without extensive training: the role of memory retrieval in implementation of task-defined rules. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 347–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (R37 MH066078). The authors are grateful to Bridgette Shamleffer, Marie Krug, Kevin Oksanen, and Jason Li for assistance with data collection and programming.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Campus Box 1125, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA

    Julie M. Bugg & Todd S. Braver

Authors
  1. Julie M. Bugg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Todd S. Braver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie M. Bugg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bugg, J.M., Braver, T.S. Proactive control of irrelevant task rules during cued task switching. Psychological Research 80, 860–876 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0686-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0686-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation