Abstract
Explicitly cued task switching with multiple cues per task permits three types of transitions: cue repetitions (cue and task repeat), task repetitions (cue changes but task repeats), and task alternations (cue and task change). The difference between task alternations and task repetitions can be interpreted as a switch cost, but its magnitude varies substantially across experiments. We investigated how switch cost is affected by transition frequency (how often subjects repeat and switch tasks) with an experiment in which each transition had a frequency of .70 in separate sessions. Switch cost was smallest when task alternations were frequent and largest when task repetitions were frequent. Mathematical modeling of the data indicated that the different “switch costs” reflected priming of cue encoding for frequent transitions. Interpretations of our findings based on automatic priming from memory retrieval of past transitions and strategic priming from transition expectancies are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allport, A., &Wylie, G. (2000). Task switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 35–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., &Kluwe, R. H. (2002). Preparatory processes in the task-switching paradigm: Evidence from the use of probability cues.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 468–483.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization.Psychological Review,95, 492–527.
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 & Performance,29, 575–599.
Logan, G. D., &Bundesen, C. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 832–840.
Mayr, U., &Kliegl, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,29, 362–372.
Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1423–1442.
Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., &Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching.Cognitive Psychology,41, 211–253.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 134–140.
Monsell, S., Sumner, P., —Waters, H. (2003). Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches.Memory — Cognition,31, 327–342.
Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,106, 226–254.
Posner, M. I., &Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.),Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 55–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rogers, R. D., &Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,124, 207–231.
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, 343–367.
Sudevan, P., &Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,13, 89–103.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant BCS 0133202 from the National Science Foundation to G.D.L.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
W. Schneider, D., D. Logan, G. Priming cue encoding by manipulating transition frequency in explicitly cued task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13, 145–151 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193826
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193826