Typically, response-repetition effects are obtained in task-switching experiments: In task repetitions, performance is enhanced when the response, too, repeats (response-repetition benefits), whereas in task switches, performance is impaired when the response repeats (response-repetition costs). A previous study introduced cue modality switches in a cued task-switching paradigm with visual stimuli and obtained enhanced response-repetition benefits when the cue modality repeated (Koch, Frings, & Schuch Psychological Research, 82, 570–579, 2018). In the present study, we aimed to replicate this finding with auditory stimuli (Exp. 1), and further examined whether response-repetition effects could be modulated by introducing stimulus modality switches (Exp. 2). We found clear evidence that the cue modality and stimulus modality affect task switch costs. The task switch costs were higher with a repeated cue modality or stimulus modality. However, cue modality switches or stimulus modality switches did not affect the response-repetition effects. We suggest that response-repetition effects are elicited by response-associated bindings, which are not necessarily affected by all episodic task features to the same extent. Our results are also in line with theoretical accounts that assume a hierarchical organization of task selection and response selection.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Following up on Koch, Frings, and Schuch (2018), we employed two cue modalities (high vs. low cue via the auditory vs. visual modality) and two tasks (magnitude vs. parity task) to isolate cue modality switch costs from task switch costs. By employing this setup, a repeated cue modality could be combined with a repeated or switched task (for a discussion, see Koch, Frings, & Schuch, 2018).
There are two possibilities to control for stimulus-repetition effects. One possibility is to exclude stimulus repetitions from the data analysis (as was done in the present study). Another possibility is to exclude stimulus repetitions from occurring in the experiment (as was done in the studies by Schuch & Koch, 2004, 2006, 2010). In the latter studies, stimulus category repetitions and switches occurred with a 1:1 ratio, whereas immediate stimulus repetitions were excluded by design.
The present results remain robust when z-scores are computed separately for each participant in each condition. Here, outliers were defined by z-transforming the RTs separately for each participant averaged over conditions, to ensure the comparability of our results to those from the preceding study by Koch, Frings, and Schuch (2018).
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, 935–951. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022931
Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-34126.96.36.1991
Druey, M. D. (2014). Stimulus-category and response-repetitions effects in task switching: An evaluation of four explanations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033868
Druey, M. D., & Hübner, R. (2008). Response inhibition under task switching: Its strength depends on the amount of task-irrelevant response activation. Psychological Research, 72, 515–527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-007-0127-1
Frings, C. (2011). On the decay of distractor-response episodes. Experimental Psychology, 58, 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000077
Frings, C., Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2007). Distractor repetitions retrieve previous responses to targets. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1367–1377. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210600955645
Frings, C., Schneider K. K., & Moeller, B. (2014). Auditory distractor processing in sequential selection tasks. Psychological Research, 78, 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0527-3
Gade, M., Schuch, S., Druey, M. D., & Koch, I. (2014). Inhibitory control in task switching. In J. Grange & G. H. Houghton (Eds.), Task switching and cognitive control (pp. 137–159). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199921959.003.0007
Grzyb, K. R., & Hübner, R. (2012). Response-repetition costs in task switching: How they are modulated by previous-trial response-category activation. Acta Psychologica, 139, 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.10.006
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, 849–878, disc. 878–937. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000103
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, 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0219-8
Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 14(Whole No. 89), 5–82.
Jost, K., De Baene, W., Koch, I., & Brass, M. (2013). A review of the role of cue processing in task switching. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 221, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000125
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019842
Kleinsorge, T. (1999). Response repetition benefits and costs. Acta Psychologica, 103, 295–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00047-5
Kleinsorge, T., & Heuer, H. (1999). Hierarchical switching in a multi-dimensional task space. Psychological Research, 62, 300–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004260050060
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, 570–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0847-9
Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 557–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000144
Koch, I., Schuch, S., Vu, K.-P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2011). Response-repetition effects in task switching—Dissociating effects of anatomical and spatial response discriminability. Acta Psychologica, 136, 399–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.01.006
Korb, F. M., Jiang, J., King, J. A., & Egner, T. (2017). Hierarchically organized medial frontal cortex–basal ganglia loops selectively control task- and response-selection. Journal of Neuroscience, 37, 7893–7905. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3289-16.2017
Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2014). Crossmodal attention switching: Auditory dominance in temporal discrimination tasks. Acta Psychologica, 153, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.10.003
Meiran, N. (2000). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004269900004
Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: a basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0435-y
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7
Peirce, J. W. (2009). Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 2, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008
Quinlan, P. T. (1999). Sequential effects in auditory choice reaction time tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 297–303. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212333
Quinlan, P. T., & Hill, N. I. (1999). Sequential effects in rudimentary auditory and visual tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 375–384. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206894
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-34188.8.131.52
Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225–237. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.225
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, 566–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-15184.108.40.2066
Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2006). Task switching and action sequencing. Psychological Research, 70, 526–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0014-6
Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2010). Response-repetition effects in task switching with and without response execution. Acta Psychologica, 135, 302–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.07.016
Seibold, J. C., Koch, I., Nolden, S., Proctor, R. W., Vu, K.-P. L., Schuch, S. (2019). Response repetitions in auditory task switching: The influence of spatial response distance and of the response–stimulus interval. Acta Psychologica, 199, 102875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2019.102875
Spence, C., & Driver, J. (1997). On measuring selective attention to an expected modality. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 389–403. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211906
Steinhauser, M., Hübner, R., & Druey, M. D. (2009). Adaptive control of response preparedness in task switching. Neuropsychologia, 47, 1826–1835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.02.022
Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019791
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Kandalowski, S.R.M., Seibold, J.C., Schuch, S. et al. Examining binding effects on task switch costs and response-repetition effects: Variations of the cue modality and stimulus modality in task switching. Atten Percept Psychophys 82, 1632–1643 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01931-0
- Response-repetition effects
- Task switching
- Cue modality switching
- Stimulus modality switching
- Episodic binding