On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials

Los, Sander A.

doi:10.1016/0001-6918(95)00050-x

Cited by 266 publications

(247 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

223

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Experiment 2: WM Load Los (1996) suggested that single-task and mixed-tasks blocks differ in "mental load": The load is higher in mixed blocks "due to the mere requirement to maintain readiness of all mental structures that could be called upon by either level of the independent variable" (p. 183). The most common conceptualization of this requirement is in terms of WM load (i.e., Baddeley, 1986;Baddeley & Logie, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Origins of the Task Mixing Cost in the Cuing Task-Switching Paradigm.

Rubin¹,

Meiran²

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

249

314

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poorer performance in conditions involving task repetition within blocks of mixed tasks relative to task repetition within blocks of single task is called mixing cost (MC). In 2 experiments exploring 2 hypotheses regarding the origins of MC, participants either switched between cued shape and color tasks, or they performed them as single tasks. Experiment 1 supported the hypothesis that mixed-tasks trials require the resolution of task ambiguity by showing that MC existed only with ambiguous stimuli that afforded both tasks and not with unambiguous stimuli affording only 1 task. Experiment 2 failed to support the hypothesis that holding multiple task sets in working memory (WM) generates MC by showing that systematic manipulation of the number of stimulus-response rules in WM did not affect MC. The results emphasize the role of competition management between task sets during task control.Keywords: task switching, switching cost, mixing cost, task ambiguity, working memory One of the prominent questions in psychological research concerns behavior control. Whereas the behaviorists' tradition has ascribed most behavioral control to the environment, recent cognitive theorists have emphasized more internally driven, top-down forms of control. This idea of cognitive control involves concepts such as goal-directed behavior, initiation, executive control processes, and so forth. A key concept in the context of top-down control is the task-set. According to Rogers and Monsell (1995), the control of task-sets is manifested in the ability to configure processing resources to perform one rather than another of the many cognitive tasks that a stimulus affords.A common paradigm for studying task-set control is the taskswitching paradigm. In the original version of this paradigm, performance in blocks of trials in which a task is repeated is compared with performance in blocks in which the participants switch between two different tasks (Allport, Styles, & Hsieh, 1994;Jersild, 1927;Spector & Biederman, 1976). More recent studies have used a modified paradigm that makes it possible to contrast task-switch trials and task-repetition trials within blocks of mixed tasks (e.g., De Jong, 1995bGoschke, 2000;Mayr & Keele, 2000;Meiran, 1996;Rogers & Monsell, 1995). In most cases, switching tasks is accompanied by a robust performance cost, seen both in reaction time (RT) and error rates, indicating switch cost.A recent conceptualization that incorporates knowledge from the variety of task-switching paradigms elaborates and sharpens the understanding of the switch mechanisms by differentiating between several cost components. The difference in performance between switch and repetition trials (in mixed-tasks blocks) is termed switching cost, and the difference between repetition trials (in mixed-tasks blocks) and single-task trials (in pure blocks) is termed mixing cost (

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Origins of the Task Mixing Cost in the Cuing Task-Switching Paradigm.

Rubin¹,

Meiran²

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

249

314

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, by showing that the CR is adaptively timed to the moment of US occurrence, this paradigm holds the promise of revealing crucial information on the timing capabilities of the organism. Los (1996) noted that the variable-foreperiod design is formally equivalent to the design used in trace conditioning, which becomes evident when S 1 is substituted for CS and S 2 for US, in which case FP constitutes the trace (i.e., the blank CS-US interval). The fact that S 2 has no intrinsic biological relevance to the organism in the FP design, contrary to the US in typical conditioning designs, is probably relatively unimportant.…”

Section: Temporal Orienting: An Intentional Influence To Nonspecific mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intentional and Unintentional Contributions to Nonspecific Preparation: Electrophysiological Evidence.

Los¹,

Heslenfeld²

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors hypothesized that there are distinct intentional and unintentional influences on nonspecific preparation for a future event. In 2 experiments, participants responded to an imperative stimulus (S 2 ) that was presented equiprobably either 400 ms or 1,200 ms after the offset of a warning stimulus (S 1 ). During the S 1 -S 2 interval, the authors measured the contingent negative variation (CNV), an event-related brain potential reflecting nonspecific preparation. S 1 provided either no information or reliable information about the duration of the impending S 1 -S 2 interval, thereby allowing an intentional influence on the state of preparation. The effect of S 1 information on the CNV was approximately additive to the effect of the S 1 -S 2 interval that was used on the preceding trial. This supports the view that the preceding S 1 -S 2 interval contributes unintentionally to the state of nonspecific preparation guided by a process of trace conditioning.

show abstract

“…Task cues help to reduce task uncertainty in competition situations such as dual-task like situations (cf. Los, 1996). With the absence of task cues, problems in differentiating among task sets may be due to similar activation states for all relevant task sets.…”

Section: Figmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two mechanisms that might explain sequential effects are associative priming and mental inertia (cf. Los, 1996; see also Allport et al, 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Age-Related Changes in Task-Switching Components: The Role of Task Uncertainty

Kray

Lindenberger

2002

Brain and Cognition

156

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined age differences in executive functioning, using an externally cued task-switching paradigm. Two components of task switching were assessed: the ability to maintain and select among task sets (general switch costs) and the ability to switch between task sets (specific switch costs). In contrast to previous findings, we found large age-related differences in specific switch costs, especially when the number of potentially relevant task sets is increased from two to four. Age-related differences in general switch costs were absent when external task cues subserved executive processing in task switching. Generally, the findings suggest that age-related impairments in task-switching components vary as a function of task uncertainty, such as the presence of environmental prompts to behavior. © 2002 Elsevier Science (USA)

show abstract

On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials

Cited by 266 publications

References 84 publications

On the Origins of the Task Mixing Cost in the Cuing Task-Switching Paradigm.

On the Origins of the Task Mixing Cost in the Cuing Task-Switching Paradigm.

Intentional and Unintentional Contributions to Nonspecific Preparation: Electrophysiological Evidence.

Age-Related Changes in Task-Switching Components: The Role of Task Uncertainty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About