Disentangling task-selection failures from task-execution failures in task switching: an assessment of different paradigms

Abstract

Differentiating errors on the basis of the distinct cognitive mechanisms that may have generated them has provided neuropsychologists with useful diagnostic tools. For example, perseverative errors arising from the inability of the patient to set a new criterion for responding are considered one of the hallmarks of cognitive inflexibility. Similarly, in the task-switching paradigm it is possible to distinguish between task-confusion errors, produced by a failure in task selection, and response-confusion errors, arising when the correct task is selected, but the wrong response is given. Nonetheless, only a few studies so far have exploited the existence of different kinds of errors in multitasking situations to inform theories of cognitive flexibility. In the present study, we set out to use a variety of methodologies employed so far in the literature for disentangling errors due to task-selection failure from errors due to task-execution failure. In three experiments, we assessed the capacity of each method to produce error categories that can be mapped as clearly as possible to the cognitive mechanism(s) underlying them using multinomial processing tree modelling. Subsequently, the distinction between task- and response-confusion errors was used to test their differential impact on inhibitory mechanisms in task switching as measured by N-2 repetition costs. Our results are encouraging regarding the possibility of correctly detecting response- and task-selection failures, thus allowing us to assess their differential impact on N-2 repetition costs.

Stimulus-triggered task conflict affects task-selection errors in task switching: A Bayesian multinomial processing tree modeling approach.

“…The present study is aimed at investigating the influence of bottom-up activation of the irrelevant task set in eliciting task conflict, using a new metric for operationalizing this construct. Other than previous studies focusing mostly on reaction time data or generic error rates, we propose to measure task conflict as the probability of erroneously executing the irrelevant task, which we refer to as task-selection failure (for a review of methodologies, see: Moretti et al, 2023). The probability of task-selection failure will be estimated from the empirical accuracy data using MPT modeling.…”

“…The present study introduces a novel approach for quantifying the task and response conflict independently. In particular, we did so by differentiating errors due to selecting the wrong task (i.e., due to task conflict) from errors due to selecting the wrong response for the chosen task (i.e., due to response conflict; cf., Moretti et al, 2023). This approach allowed us to assess differences and commonalities between these two conflict types, in particular in regard to the cognitive factors causing them.…”

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

“…The subtasks has a definitive observable start and end point (i.e., stimulus onset and response execution), allowing us to analyze performance based on a fine-grained subtask level. Since procedural tasks comprise several subtasks which have to be performed in a predefined order, they also allow for the differentation between nonsequence errors and sequence errors (e.g., Altmann et al, 2017 ; see also Moretti et al, 2022 ).…”

Evidence of task-triggered retrieval of the previous response: a binding perspective on response-repetition benefits in task switching

“…Across two experiments, we measured the probability of erroneously repeating the n−1 response in a task-switching paradigm with three response alternatives (Koch et al, 2023 ; Moretti et al, 2023 ; Steinhauser & Gade, 2015 ). In response switches, this permits distinguishing (1) the correct response, (2) an incorrect response repeating the n−1 response (a response-repetition error ), and (3) the remaining response (a residual error ).…”