The impact of cue format and cue transparency on task switching performance
- 31 Downloads
Cues help in retrieving and implementing task-sets, that are actual representations of the to-be performed task in working memory. However, whereas previous studies revealed that the effectiveness of selecting and implementing task-sets based on cues depends on the type of cue (i.e., transparent words vs. arbitrary shapes), it is still unclear which characteristics of cues are responsible for these differences and whether the impact of the cue is bound to task-set retrieval only or also impacts task-set representations. For instance, the amount of interference during actual task performance has been reported to alter dependent on cue type as do preparation gains such as the reduction of switch cost. To investigate the effectiveness of cue characteristics (i.e., cue transparency and cue format), we manipulated those within- and between-participants in three experiments. Main dependent measures were switch costs in reaction times and error rates that occur when participants have to switch task-sets, and thus update working memory content. Our results consistently show beneficial effects of transparent cues for the reduction of switch cost. The influence of cue format was manifest in within-participants manipulation only and was mainly found in error rates. Overall, our data suggest that the amount of interference experienced in actual task performance can be significantly modulated dependent on cue type, suggesting flexible adaptation of the cognitive system to contextual information.
Research reported in this article was supported by a grant from the DFG (GA2105-2/1) to Miriam Gade. The authors would like to thank Sarah Schoch and Stefanie Ochsenkühn for their help in data collection. Raw data, trimmed data and analysis scripts can be found at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/mm4yc/?view_only=809d07010bf54d17bfcc027145083984.
This study was funded by a grant of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft to the first author (GA2105/2-1).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Both authors declare no conflict of interest.
- Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Review, 115(3), 602–639.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2007). The representation of instructions in working memory leads to autonomous response activation: Evidence from the first trials in the flanker paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(8), 1140–1154. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210600896674.Google Scholar
- Druey, M. D., & Hübner, R. (2007). The role of temporal cue-target overlap in backward inhibition under task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 749–754.Google Scholar
- Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2008). Dissociating cue-related and task-related processes in task inhibition: evidence from using a 2:1 cue-to-task mapping. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology = Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 62(1), 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/1196-1922.214.171.124.Google Scholar
- Gade, M., Schuch, S., Druey, M. D., & Koch, I. (2014). Inhibitory control in task switching. In J. A. Grange, & G. Houghton (Eds.), Executive Control and Task Switching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task-set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes (Vol 18, pp. 331–355). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (Eds.) (2014). Task Switching and Cognitive Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hernández, M., Martin, C., Barcelo, F., & Costa, A. (2013). Where is the bilingual advantage in task-switching? Journal of Memory and Language, 69(3), 257–276.Google Scholar
- Hommel, B. (2000). The prepared reflex: Automaticity and control in stimulus-response translation. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes (pp. 247–273). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393–434.Google Scholar
- Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2006). Interpreting instructional cues in task switching procedures: The role of mediator retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(2), 347.Google Scholar
- Mayr, U. (2003). Towards principles of executive control: how mental sets are selected. In R.H. Kluwe, G. Lüer, & F. Rösler (Eds.), Principles of Learning and Memory (pp. 223–240). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-8030-5_13. (Birkhäuser Basel).
- Mayr, U., Kleffner-Canucci, K., Kikumoto, A., & Redford, M. A. (2014). Control of task sequences: What is the role of language? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 376–384.Google Scholar
- R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/. Accessed 1 Feb 2018.
- Rey-Mermet, A., Gade, M., & Oberauer, K. (2017). Stop thinking about inhibition - Searching for individual and age differences in inhibition as explanatory psychometric construct. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 44, 501–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000450.Google Scholar
- Seibold, J. C., Nolden, S., Oberem, J., Fels, J., & Koch, I. (2017). Intentional preparation of auditory attention-switches: explicit Cueing and sequential switch-predictability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 0(ja), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1344867.Google Scholar
- Singmann, H., Bolker, B., & Westfall, J. (2015). afex: Analysis of factorial experiments. R package version 0.13–145.Google Scholar
- Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., Vandierendonck, A., & Demanet, J. (2007). Short cue presentations encourage advance task preparation: a recipe to diminish the residual switch cost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(2), 342–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-73126.96.36.1992.Google Scholar
- Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design (3rd edn.). London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar