Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 83, Issue 5, pp 1007–1019 | Cite as

Response–cue interval effects in extended-runs task switching: memory, or monitoring?

  • Erik M. AltmannEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This study investigated effects of manipulating the response–cue interval (RCI) in the extended-runs task-switching procedure. In this procedure, a task cue is presented at the start of a run of trials and then withdrawn, such that the task has to be stored in memory to guide performance until the next task cue is presented. The effects of the RCI manipulation were not as predicted by an existing model of memory processes in task switching (Altmann and Gray, Psychol Rev 115:602–639, 2008), suggesting that either the model is incorrect or the RCI manipulation did not have the intended effect. The manipulation did produce a theoretically meaningful pattern, in the form of a main effect on response time that was not accompanied by a similar effect on the error rate. This pattern, which replicated across two experiments, is interpreted here in terms of a process that monitors for the next task cue, with a longer RCI acting as a stronger signal that a cue is about to appear. The results have implications for the human factors of dynamic task environments in which critical events occur unpredictably.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the manuscript reviewers for their careful reading and helpful suggestions for improvement. This work was funded by the Office of Naval Research, Grants N000140310063 and N000141612841.

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

This research was funded by Grants N000140310063 and N000141612841 from the US Office of Naval Research.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Altmann, E. M. (2004). Advance preparation in task switching: What work is being done? Psychological Science, 15, 616–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altmann, E. M. (2005). Repetition priming in task switching: Do the benefits dissipate? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 535–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altmann, E. M. (2011). Testing probability matching and episodic retrieval accounts of response repetition effects in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 935–951Google Scholar
  4. Altmann, E. M. (2013). Fine-grain episodic memory processes in cognitive control. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 221, 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Altmann, E. M. (2014). The extended runs procedure and restart cost. In J. A. Grange & G. Houghton (Eds.), Task switching and cognitive control (pp. 101–116). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Review, 115, 602–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Erlebacher, A. (1977). Design and analysis of experiments contrasting the within- and between-subjects manipulation of the independent variable. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 212–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grange, J. A., & Cross, E. (2015). Can time-based decay explain temporal distinctiveness effects in task switching? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Horoufchin, H., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2011). The dissipating task-repetition benefit in cued task switching: Task-set decay or temporal distinctiveness? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 455–472.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mari-Beffa, P. (2014). The mixing cost as a measure of cognitive control. In J. A. Grange & G. Houghton (Eds.), Task switching and cognitive control (pp. 74–100). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Poljac, E., & Bekkering, H. (2009). Generic cognitive adaptations to task interference in task switching. Acta Psychologica, 132, 279–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Poljac, E., de Haan, A., & van Galen, G. P. (2006). Current task activation predicts general effects of advance preparation in task switching. Experimental Psychology, 53, 260–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Smith, R. E., Hunt, R. R., McVay, J. C., & McConnell, M. D. (2007). The cost of event-based prospective memory: Salient target events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 734–746.Google Scholar
  16. Sohn, M.-H., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Task preparation and task repetition: Two-component model of task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 764–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations