Development and Validation of a Shortened Language-Specific Version of the UNRAVEL Placekeeping Ability Performance Measuring Tool

Kopacz, Agata; Biele, Cezary; Zdrodowska, Aldona

doi:10.5709/acp-0273-3

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the methodological level, in task-switching experiments with a random task sequence, subjects switch between the stimulus–response mappings of completed discrete tasks (see Monk et al, 2008 ). In contrast, in our task-interruption paradigm and all task-interruption studies with a procedural task as primary task (e.g., UNRAVEL task by Altmann et al, 2014 , or WINDA task by Kopacz et al, 2019 ), subjects are instructed to perform a more complex single task which is made up of several subtasks which have to be performed in a specific order. In task-switching experiments using the alternating runs paradigm, subjects also perform a fixed sequence of tasks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the cognitive processes underlying resumption costs in task-interruption contexts: Decay or inhibition of suspended task goals?

Hirsch,

Moretti,

Askin

et al. 2023

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To examine whether an ongoing primary task is inhibited when switching to an interruption task, we implemented the n − 2 backward inhibition paradigm into a task-interruption setting. In two experiments, subjects performed two primary tasks (block-wise manipulation) consisting of a predefined sequence of three subtasks. The primary tasks differed regarding whether the last subtask switched or repeated relative to the penultimate subtask, resulting in n − 1 switch subtasks (e.g., ABC) and n − 1 repetition subtasks (e.g., ACC) as the last subtask of the primary task. Occasionally, an interruption task was introduced before the last subtask of a primary task, changing the last subtask of the primary task from a n − 1 switch subtask to a n − 2 switch subtask (e.g., AB → secondary task → C) and from a n − 1 repetition subtask to a n − 2 repetition subtask (e.g., AC → secondary task → C). In two experiments with different degrees of response-set overlap between the interruption task and the subtasks of the primary task, we observed that switching back from the interruption task to the primary task resulted in n − 2 switch costs in the first subtask after the interruption (i.e., worse performance in n − 2 switch subtasks than in n − 2 repetition subtasks). This n − 2 switch cost was replicated in a third experiment in which we used a predefined sequence of four subtasks instead of three subtasks. Our finding of n − 2 switch costs suggest that the last subtask performed before the interruption remains activated when switching to the interruption task.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%