Instruction-based task-rule congruency effects.

Abstract

The present study investigated the functional characteristics of task-sets that were never applied before and were formed only on the basis of instructions. We tested if such task-sets could elicit a task-rule congruency effect, which implies the automatic activation of responses in the context of another task. To this end, a novel procedure was developed that revealed instruction-based task-rule congruency effects in two experiments. Although the effect seems quite general (Experiment 1) it still necessitates the formation of a task-set as it cannot be induced by the mere maintenance of instructions in declarative working memory (Experiment 2). We conclude that a task-set representing only key features of an upcoming task can be formed on the basis of instructions alone to such a degree that it can automatically trigger a response tendency in another task. Implications of our results for the impact of instructions on performance in general, and for the occurrence of task-rule congruency effects in particular, are discussed.Keywords: task-set, task switching, task-rule congruency, instructions INSTRUCTION-BASED TASK-RULE CONGRUENCY EFFECTS 3 Instruction-based task-rule congruency effectsGoal-directed behavior is assumed to be based on task-sets that specify and group the control settings of different task-related processes, such as stimulus identification, response selection, and response execution (e.g., Vandierendonck, Liefooghe, & Verbruggen, 2010).While the functional properties of task-sets have been studied extensively in the taskswitching paradigm (see, Kiesel et al., 2010;Monsell, 2003;Vandierendonck et al., 2010 for reviews), only little is known on how task-sets are formed when the instructions of a particular task are presented. This is surprising because it seems obvious that instructions play an important role, for instance, by indicating which task to perform or how a task must be performed. Accordingly, the present study further investigated the functional characteristics of task-sets formed only on the basis of instructions. We tested if a task-set that is formed on the basis of instructions meant for a particular task that has not yet been executed, can elicit automatic response tendencies despite being irrelevant in the context of another task. This was done by using the task-rule congruency effect. Task-Rule CongruencyThe task-rule congruency effect is a robust finding in task-switching studies that require participants to switch between two tasks (e.g., shape or color judgment) that share stimuli (e.g., colored shapes) and responses (e.g., a left or right response key; see, Kiesel et al., 2010;Monsell, 2003; Vandierendonck et al., 2010 for reviews). Each response thus has two -meanings‖ (e.g., circle and red for the left response and square and green for the right response) and stimuli trigger these two meanings, with one related to the relevant task and the other related to the irrelevant task. The task-rule congruency effect refers to the finding that RTs are shorter when both respo...

Attention to future actions: the influence of instructed S-R versus S-S mappings on attentional control

“…Because attention was modulated across these different instances, instructed S-R associations most likely employ higher-order conceptual stimulus representations, rather than concrete representations. This conclusion converges with the proposals of Liefooghe et al (2012), who suggested that instructed S-R associations only include conceptual response representations. Taken together, the present study and the study of Liefooghe et al (2012) indicate that instructed S-R associations are most probably stripped of concrete stimulus and response features during the implementation of instructions.…”

“…While the impact of future plans on attention remains to be determined, research on response-compatibility effects demonstrated that a plan about a future action or task that is merely based on the implementation of instructions can lead to automatic response activations (CohenKdoshay & Meiran, 2007;De Houwer, Beckers, Vandorpe & Custers, 2005;Everaert, Theeuwes, Liefooghe, & De Houwer, 2014;Liefooghe, De Houwer and Wenke, 2013;Liefooghe, Wenke, & De Houwer, 2012;Meiran & Cohen-Kdoshay, 2012;Meiran, Pereg, Kessler, Cole, & Braver, in press;Theeuwes, Liefooghe, & De Houwer, 2014;Waszak, Pfister, & Kiesel, 2013;Wenke, Gaschler, & Nattkemper, 2007;Wenke, De Houwer, De Winne, & Liefooghe, in press). A common assumption in this line of research is that the cognitive system can prepare itself for a future task on the basis of instructions without any practice or experience (Meiran, Cole, & Brever, 2012).…”

“…In a procedure that is highly relevant for our research, Liefooghe, et al (2012Liefooghe, et al ( , 2013) asked participants to perform two tasks. First, participants received instructions for an inducer task that consisted of pressing a specific button when a green letter appeared (e.g., if Q, press left; if P press right).…”

“…We used a variant of the procedure of Liefooghe et al (2012) and the procedure of Downing (2000), in order to examine two research questions. First, we tested whether attention is biased toward new stimuli (S) that are paired with an instructed future response (R).…”

“…In line with the procedure developed by Liefooghe et al (2012Liefooghe et al ( , 2013, we asked participants to perform an inducer task and a diagnostic task. Participants first viewed the instructions for the inducer task.…”