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.

Spatially corresponding stimulus-response pairings usually produce shorter reaction times (RTs) than do noncorresponding pairings, even when the spatial dimension of the stimulus is irrelevant to the task. This BSimon effect^for visual stimuli and manual responses is often larger for the stimulus location on the side to which the person's dominant hand is operating. The present study aimed at replicating and examining the nature of this asymmetry. To determine whether the Simon effect asymmetry is a function of the hand distinction or of conceptual spatial codes, performance with left and right manual key-presses was compared to that with vocal responses Bleft^and Bright.^Whether the asymmetric Simon effect pattern is restricted to spatial stimuli was tested by comparing effects obtained with left and right located squares to those found with the centered words Left and Right. The asymmetry was only replicated for the spatial stimulusmanual response Simon task, for which a second experiment showed similar results when the hands and response box were not visible during task performance. The analysis revealed a general dominant-hand RT advantage that similarly adds to both corresponding and non-corresponding trials and is rather independent from the Simon effect. This advantage yields an apparent asymmetry when the data are analyzed as a function of correspondence for each stimulus location because the corresponding and non-corresponding RTs that are compared come from different hands.

In an auditory attention-switching paradigm, participants heard two simultaneously spoken number-words, each presented to one ear, and decided whether the target number was smaller or larger than 5 by pressing a left or right key. An instructional cue in each trial indicated which feature had to be used to identify the target number (e.g., female voice). Auditory attention-switch costs were found when this feature changed compared to when it repeated in two consecutive trials. Earlier studies employing this paradigm showed mixed results when they examined whether such cued auditory attention-switches can be prepared actively during the cue-stimulus interval. This study systematically assessed which preconditions are necessary for the advance preparation of auditory attention-switches. Three experiments were conducted that controlled for cue-repetition benefits, modality switches between cue and stimuli, as well as for predictability of the switch-sequence. Only in the third experiment, in which predictability for an attention-switch was maximal due to a pre-instructed switch-sequence and predictable stimulus onsets, active switch-specific preparation was found. These results suggest that the cognitive system can prepare auditory attention-switches, and this preparation seems to be triggered primarily by the memorised switching-sequence and valid expectations about the time of target onset.

No abstract

An auditory attention-switching paradigm was combined with a judgment-switching paradigm to examine the interaction of a varying auditory attention component and a varying judgment component. Participants heard two dichotically presented stimuli-one spoken by a female speaker and one spoken by a male speaker. In each trial, the stimuli were a spoken letter and a spoken number. A visual explicit cue at the beginning of each trial indicated the auditory attention criterion (speaker sex/ear) to identify the target stimulus (Experiment 1) or the judgment that had to be executed (Experiment 2). Hence, the attentional selection criterion switched independently between speaker sexes (or between ears), while the judgment alternated between letter categorization and number categorization. The data indicate that auditory attention criterion and judgment were not processed independently, regardless of whether the attention criterion or the judgment was cued. The partial repetition benefits of the explicitly cued component suggested a hierarchical organization of the auditory attention component and the judgment component within the task set. We suggest that the hierarchy arises due to the explicit cuing of one component rather than due to a "natural" hierarchy of auditory attention component and judgment component.