Advertisement

Task structure boundaries affect response preparation

  • Savannah L. CooksonEmail author
  • Eliot Hazeltine
  • Eric H. Schumacher
Original Article

Abstract

Does cognitive control operate globally (across task sets) or locally (within a task set)? Recently, two of the current co-authors (Hazeltine and Schumacher 2016; Schumacher and Hazeltine 2016) proposed that humans represent tasks as task files: hierarchically structured, compartmentalized subsets of our current goals and motivations, task instructions, and relevant stimuli and responses that are selected during task performance according to associated contextual rules. Here, we hypothesize that these task representations bound the implementation of cognitive control at distinct levels of this hierarchical structure. To investigate how task structure influences the implementation of control processes, we conducted a pair of experiments that utilized a precuing procedure. To manipulate task structure, we gave participants mappings in which two stimulus sets were either mapped so that each set was separated by response hand or both sets were interleaved across hands. In Experiment 1, participants responded to sets of images distinguished by their semantic category; in Experiment 2, they responded to sets based on different perceptual features (viz., location or color). During each experiment, precues could give information about the stimulus category or response hand for the upcoming target. The results indicate that participants with separated mappings represented the task hierarchically, while those with interleaved mappings did not. This pattern was consistent across experiments, despite the differences in the way that each set of stimuli influenced representation of the low-level task features. These findings suggest that task structure can be represented hierarchically, and that this structure supports distinct cognitive control processes at different hierarchical levels.

Notes

References

  1. Adam, J. J., Hommel, B., & Umiltà, C. (2003). Preparing for perception and action (I): The role of grouping in the response-cuing paradigm. Cognitive Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0285(02)00516-9.Google Scholar
  2. Adam, J. J., Hommel, B., & Umiltà, C. (2005). Preparing for perception and action (II): Automatic and effortful processes in response cueing. Visual Cognition.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280444000779.Google Scholar
  3. Akçay, Ç., & Hazeltine, E. (2007). Conflict monitoring and feature overlap: Two sources of sequential modulations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 742–748.  https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cookson, S. L., Hazeltine, E., & Schumacher, E. H. (2016). Neural representation of stimulus–response associations during task preparation. Brain Research, 1648(Part A), 496–505.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2016.08.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fitts, P. M., & Seeger, C. M. (1953). S–R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46(3), 199–210.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goodale, M. A., Milner, A. D., Jakobson, L. S., & Carey, D. P. (1991). A neurological dissociation between perceiving objects and grasping them. Nature, 349(6305), 154–156.  https://doi.org/10.1038/349154a0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goodman, D., & Kelso, J. S. (1980). Are movements prepared in parts? Not under compatible (naturalized) conditions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(4), 475–495.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.109.4.475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hazeltine, E., Lightman, E., Schwarb, H., & Schumacher, E. H. (2011). The boundaries of sequential modulations: Evidence for set-level control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37(6), 1898.Google Scholar
  9. Hazeltine, E., & Schumacher, E. H. (2016). Understanding central processes: The case against simple stimulus-response associations and for complex task representation. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 64, pp. 195–245). San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hick, W. E. (1952). On the rate of gain of information. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11–26.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470215208416600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huang, L., & Awh, E. (2018). Chunking in working memory via content-free labels. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 23.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-18157-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45(3), 188–196.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martinez, A. M., & Benavente, R. (1998). The AR face database. CVC Technical Report, 24.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller, J. (1982). Discrete versus continuous stage models of human information processing: In search of partial output. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(2), 273–296.Google Scholar
  16. Miller, J. (1983). Can response preparation begin before stimulus recognition finishes? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9(2), 161–182.Google Scholar
  17. Proctor, R. W., & Reeve, T. G. (1985). Compatibility effects in the assignment of symbolic stimuli to discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11(5), 623–639.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.11.5.623.Google Scholar
  18. Reeve, T., & Proctor, R. (1984). On the advance preparation of discrete finger responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 10(4), 541–553.Google Scholar
  19. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rosenbaum, D. A. (1980). Human movement initiation: Specification of arm, direction, and extent. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(4), 444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rosenbaum, D. A. (1983). The movement precuing technique: Assumptions, applications, and extensions. Advances in Psychology, 12, 231–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schumacher, E. H., Cookson, S. L., Smith, D. M., Nguyen, T. V. N., Sultan, Z., Reuben, K. E., et al. (2018). Dual-task processing with identical stimulus and response sets: Assessing the importance of task representation in dual-task interference. Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01031.Google Scholar
  23. Schumacher, E. H., & Hazeltine, E. (2016). Hierarchical Task Representation: Task Files and Response Selection. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), 449–454.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416665085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ungerleider, L. G., & Haxby, J. V. (1994). ‘What’ and ‘where’ in the human brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 4(2), 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.University of IowaIowa CityUSA
  3. 3.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations