Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Stimulus- and response-based interference contributes to the costs of switching between cognitive tasks

  • 278 Accesses

  • 1 Citations

Abstract

Little is known about how stimulus- and response-based interference might interact to contribute to the costs of switching between cognitive tasks. We analyzed switch costs in a novel cued task-switching/card-matching paradigm in a large study (N = 95). We reasoned that interference from previously active task sets may be contingent upon the retrieval of these task sets via stimulus processing, or alternatively, via response processing. We examined the efficacy of these two factors through eligibility manipulations. That is, stimulus/response features that were capable of retrieving task sets from the previous trial remained eligible (or not) on the current trial. We report three main findings: first, no switch costs were found when neither stimulus features, nor response features, were adequate for the retrieval of the previously executed task sets. Second, we found substantial switch costs when, on switch trials, stimulus features kept the previously executed task eligible, and we found roughly equivalent switch costs when the previously executed response remained eligible. Third, evidence for stimulus-induced switch costs was exclusively observed when previously executed responses remained ineligible. These data indicate that stimulus-based interference, and of importance, response-based interference, contribute comparably to switch costs. Possible interpretations of non-additive switch costs are discussed.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    The WCST is often criticized for its complexity, which originates from arbitrary features of the standard material. Let r be the number of sorting rules, and let f be the number of rule features (r = 3, f = 4 for the WCST). There are fr distinct response cards (Dehaene & Changeux 1991), rendering the WCST a complex task requiring sufficient intellectual comprehension. fr may be considered as a general metric of card-matching complexity, c, with WCST-c = 64

  2. 2.

    The terms “stimulus-task” and “response-task” mean something completely different and should not be confused with similar terms used by Meiran (2000a, b): here they mean that the stimulus (or response) gets bound with the task set. In Meiran’s theory, the terms “stimulus-set” and “response-set” meant to represent two separate aspects of what we call here “task set”. The idea in that theory was that task sets are conglomerates of representations that include which aspects of the stimulus are attended/ignored (stimulus-set) and which parts of the response (representation) are attended/ignored—the “response-set”

  3. 3.

    Note that we conducted a control study in which the eligibility of reference cards/responses was manipulated by deleting one of the three reference cards instead of introducing response cues. The observed two-way interaction effect of Task Transition and CTE that we obtained in the control study parallels the findings that were reported on PRi trials in the main study. This result suggests that the presence of a two-way interaction effect in the main study cannot be attributed to the introduction of response cues. Please see the supplementary material for details

References

  1. Abrahamse, E., Braem, S., Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. (2016). Grounding cognitive control in associative learning. Psychological Bulletin, 142(7), 693–728. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000047.

  2. Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting Intentional Set: Exploring the Dynamic Control of Tasks. In C. A. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  3. 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. 377–399). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  4. 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(4), 935–951. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022931.

  5. Berg, E. A. (1948). A simple objective technique for measuring flexibility in thinking. The Journal of General Psychology, 39, 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1948.9918159.

  6. Bichot, N. P., Heard, M. T., DeGennaro, E. M., & Desimone, R. (2015). A source for feature-based attention in the prefrontal cortex. Neuron, 88(4), 832–844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2015.10.001.

  7. Bishara, A. J., Kruschke, J. K., Stout, J. C., Bechara, A., McCabe, D. P., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2010). Sequential learning models for the wisconsin card sort task: assessing processes in substance dependent individuals. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2008.10.002.

  8. Dehaene, S., & Changeux, J. P. (1991). The wisconsin card sorting test: theoretical analysis and modeling in a neuronal network. Cerebral Cortex, 1(1), 62–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/1.1.62.

  9. Demakis, G. J. (2003). A meta-analytic review of the sensitivity of the wisconsin card sorting test to frontal and lateralized frontal brain damage. Neuropsychology, 17(2), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.17.2.255.

  10. Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18, 193–222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.001205.

  11. Druey, M. D. (2014). Stimulus-category and response-repetition effects in task switching: An evaluation of four explanations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(1), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033868.

  12. Druey, M. D., & Hübner, R. (2008). Effects of stimulus features and instruction on response coding, selection, and inhibition: Evidence from repetition effects under task switching. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(10), 1573–1600. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701643397.

  13. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.

  14. Gade, M., Schuch, S., Druey, M. D., & Koch, I. (2014). Inhibitory control in task switching. In J. A. Grange & G. Houghton (Eds.), Task switching and cognitive control (pp. 137–159). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199921959.003.0007.

  15. Gilbert, S. J., & Shallice, T. (2002). Task switching: A PDP model. Cognitive Psychology, 44(3), 297–337. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0770.

  16. Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (Eds.). (2014). Task switching and cognitive control. New York: Oxford University Press.

  17. Grant, D. A., & Berg, E. A. (1948). A behavioral analysis of degree of reinforcement and ease of shifting to new responses in a weigl-type card-sorting problem. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38(4), 404–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059831.

  18. Grzyb, K. R., & Hübner, R. (2013). Excessive response-repetition costs under task switching: How response inhibition amplifies response conflict. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(1), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028477.

  19. Hazeltine, E., & Schumacher, E. H. (2016). Chapter six—Understanding central processes: The case against simple stimulus-response associations and for complex task representation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 64, 195–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2015.09.006.

  20. Hollands, J. G., & Jarmasz, J. (2010). Revisiting confidence intervals for repeated measures designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(1), 135–138. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.1.135.

  21. Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007.

  22. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(05), 849–878. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000103.

  23. Hübner, R., Druey M. D. (2006). Response execution, selection, or activation: What is sufficient for response-related repetition effects under task shifting? Psychological Research, 70(4), 245–261.

  24. Hübner, R., & Druey, M. D. (2008). Multiple response codes play specific roles in response selection and inhibition under task switching. Psychological Research, 72(4), 415–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-007-0118-2.

  25. Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 89, 1–82.

  26. Kieffaber, P. D., Kruschke, J. K., Cho, R. Y., Walker, P. M., & Hetrick, W. P. (2013). Dissociating stimulus-set and response-set in the context of task-set switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 700–719. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029545.

  27. 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(5), 849–874. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019842.

  28. Kleinsorge, T., & Heuer, H. (1999). Hierarchical switching in a multi-dimensional task space. Psychological Research, 62(4), 300–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260050060.

  29. Koch, I., & Allport, A. (2006). Cue-Based Preparation and Stimulus-Based Priming of Tasks in Task Switching. Memory & Cognition, 34(2), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193420.

  30. Koch, I., Frings, C., & Schuch, S. (2018). Explaining response-repetition effects in task switching: evidence from switching cue modality suggests episodic binding and response inhibition. Psychological Research, 82(3), 570–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0847-9.

  31. Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.1.1.

  32. Kopp, B., Tabeling, S., Moschner, C., & Wessel, K. (2006). Fractionating the neural mechanisms of cognitive control. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(6), 949–965. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2006.18.6.949.

  33. Lange, F., Kip, A., Klein, T., Müller, D., Seer, C., & Kopp, B. (2018). Effects of rule uncertainty on cognitive flexibility in a card-sorting paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 190, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.07.002.

  34. Lange, F., Kröger, B., Steinke, A., Seer, C., Dengler, R., & Kopp, B. (2016). Decomposing card-sorting performance: effects of working memory load and age-related changes. Neuropsychology, 30(5), 579–590. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000271.

  35. Lange, F., Seer, C., Müller, D., & Kopp, B. (2015). Cognitive caching promotes flexibility in task switching: evidence from event-related potentials. Scientific Reports, 5, 17502. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17502.

  36. Luria, A. R. (1965). Two Kinds of Motor Perseveration in Massive Injury of the Frontal Lobes. Brain, 88, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/88.1.1.

  37. Mathôt, S., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7.

  38. Mayr, U. (2001). Age differences in the selection of mental sets: The role of inhibition, stimulus ambiguity, and response-set overlap. Psychology and Aging, 16(1), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.16.1.96.

  39. Mayr, U., & Bryck, R. L. (2005). Sticky rules: Integration between abstract rules and specific actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(2), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.2.337.

  40. Mayr, U., Kuhns, D., & Rieter, M. (2013). Eye movements reveal dynamics of task control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(2), 489–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029353.

  41. Meiran, N. (2000a). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63(3–4), 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004269900004.

  42. Meiran, N. (2000b). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes. Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 377–399). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  43. Meiran, N. (2014). The task-cuing paradigm: A User’s guide. In J. A. Grange & G. Houghton (Eds.), Task switching and cognitive control (pp. 45–73). New York: Oxford University Press.

  44. 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(5), 473–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-008-0136-8.

  45. Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An Integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167.

  46. Milner, B. (1963). Effects of different brain lesions on card sorting: the role of the frontal lobes. Archives of Neurology, 9(1), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1963.00460070100010.

  47. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7.

  48. Monsell, S., Taylor, T. J., & Murphy, K. (2001). Naming the color of a word: Is it responses or task sets that compete? Memory & Cognition, 29(1), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195748.

  49. Mueller, S. C., Swainson, R., & Jackson, G. M. (2007). Behavioural and neurophysiological correlates of bivalent and univalent responses during task switching. Brain Research, 1157(1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.04.046.

  50. Nyhus, E., & Barceló, F. (2009). The wisconsin card sorting test and the cognitive assessment of prefrontal executive functions: A critical update. Brain and Cognition, 71(3), 437–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2009.03.005.

  51. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207.

  52. Rubin, O., & Koch, I. (2006). Exogenous influences on task set activation in task switching. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(6), 1033–1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980543000105.

  53. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.27.4.763.

  54. Schmidt, J. R., & Liefooghe, B. (2016). Feature integration and task switching: Diminished switch costs after controlling for stimulus, response, and cue repetitions. Plos One, 11(3), e0151188. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151188.

  55. 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(1), 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.29.1.92.

  56. Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2004). The costs of changing the representation of action: response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(3), 566–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.3.566.

  57. Smith, M. C. (1968). Repetition effect and short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77(3), 435–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021293.

  58. Spector, A., & Biederman, I. (1976). Mental Set and Mental shift revisited. The American Journal of Psychology, 89(4), 669–679. https://doi.org/10.2307/1421465.

  59. Steinhauser, M., Hübner, R., & Druey, M. (2009). Adaptive control of response preparedness in task switching. Neuropsychologia, 47(8–9), 1826–1835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.02.022.

  60. Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A Compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary (3rd edn.). New York: Oxford University Press.

  61. Vandierendonck, A. (2017). A comparison of methods to combine speed and accuracy measures of performance: A rejoinder on the binning procedure. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 653–673. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0721-5.

  62. Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 601–626. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019791.

  63. Verbruggen, F., Stevens, T., & Chambers, C. D. (2014). Proactive and reactive stopping when distracted: An attentional account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1295–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036542.

  64. von Bastian, C. C., & Druey, M. D. (2017). Shifting between mental sets: An individual differences approach to commonalities and differences of task switching components. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(9), 1266–1285. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000333.

  65. 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(4), 361–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00520-0.

  66. West, R., Bailey, K., & Langley, M. M. (2009). An investigation of the neural correlates of attention and effector switching using ERPs. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 9(2), 190–201. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.9.2.190.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a research grant from the Petermax-Müller-Foundation, awarded to B.K. F.L. received funding from the German National Academic Foundation. We thank Mark Vollrath for providing study rooms.

Author information

Correspondence to Bruno Kopp.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human or animal participants

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the local Ethics Committee at the Department of Psychology (Technische Universität Braunschweig, B-2016-14) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Data availability statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the Open Science Framework repository, https://osf.io/cqkhn/.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (MOV 32264 KB)

Supplementary material 2 (PDF 708 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kopp, B., Steinke, A., Meiran, N. et al. Stimulus- and response-based interference contributes to the costs of switching between cognitive tasks. Psychological Research (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1113-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Task switching
  • Switch costs
  • Stimulus-based interference
  • Response-based interference