Are stimulus–response rules represented phonologically for task-set preparation and maintenance?

Abstract

Accounts of task-set control generally assume that the current task's stimulus-response (S-R) rules must be elevated to a privileged state of activation. How are they represented in this state? In 3 task-cuing experiments, we tested the hypothesis that phonological working memory is used to represent S-R rules for task-set control by getting participants to switch between 2 sets of arbitrary S-R rules and manipulating the articulatory duration (Experiment 1) or phonological similarity (Experiments 2 and 3) of the names of the stimulus terms. The task cue specified which of 2 objects (Experiment 1) or consonants (Experiment 2) in a display to identify with a key press. In Experiment 3, participants switched between identifying an object/consonant and its color/visual texture. After practice, neither the duration nor the similarity of the stimulus terms had detectable effects on overall performance, task-switch cost, or its reduction with preparation. Only in the initial single-task training blocks was phonological similarity a significant handicap. Hence, beyond a very transient role, there is no evidence that (declarative) phonological working memory makes a functional contribution to representing S-R rules for task-set control, arguably because once learned, they are represented in nonlinguistic procedural working memory.

The role of language in novel task learning

“…In relation to previous findings, our results are consistent with those of Van 't Wout et al (2013), who found that S-R rules are not represented phonologically once the task is well-practiced.…”

“…Miyake, Emerson, Padilla, & Ahn, 2004). Finally, one other task switching study designed to investigate the contribution of language to task-set control manipulated the phonological similarity of the stimulus terms (Van 't Wout, Lavric, & Monsell, 2013). This study did not find any effect of phonological similarity on task switching performance once the tasks were well-practiced.…”

“…But there are other important differences between single task and task switching blocks (e.g., Monsell, 2003) that complicate the interpretation of that result. Furthermore, Van 't Wout et al's (2013) study was not designed to investigate the diminishing role of language as a function of practice (it contained only one phonologically similar and one dissimilar task per experiment), and therefore a systematic investigation into this process is still required.…”

A Working Memory System With Distributed Executive Control

“…These studies hence support the conclusion that maintaining a verbal goal representation plays an important role in task switching: when the cues are transparent, the verbal goal can be retrieved without any additional verbal processing, but when the cues are absent or nontransparent, additional verbal processing is needed to establish the verbal goal. 2 Inner speech may be used to support this maintenance, and it takes the form of verbalization of task goals, task cues, and possibly category-response mappings (Liefooghe et al, 2005; but see van’t Wout, Lavric, & Monsell, 2013). Thus inner speech supports cue interpretation, particularly in situations in which the cues are arbitrary and do not provide direct access to the task name or the task goal (Miyake et al, 2004; Saeki & Saito, 2012).…”

A role for proactive control in rapid instructed task learning

“…Specifically, switching and working memory appear to be related to two separate individual-differences dimensions (Miyake & Friedman, 2012). Furthermore, experimental work employing working-memory load manipulations show minimal if any involvement of working memory in task switching (Kessler & Meiran, 2009; Kiesel, Wendt, & Peters, 2005; van’t Wout, Lavric, & Monsell, 2013). Additionally, in the Meiran et al (2002) study, participants switched between highly practiced tasks, such that the potential absence of proactive processes may be selective to non-RITL contexts.…”