Stimulus-related priming during task switching

Sohn, Myeong-Ho; Anderson, John R.

doi:10.3758/bf03196115

Cited by 29 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rogers and Monsell also found that this switch cost decreased when the interval between one stimulus and the next (the response-to-stimulus interval, or RSI) was increased but that there was an irreducible switch cost that was not removed, no matter how long RSI became. Other researchers have since replicated and extended these findings, using the repeated runs design (e.g., De Jong, 2000;Gilbert & Shallice, 2002;Karayanidis, Coltheart, Michie, & Murphy, 2003;Lien, Schweickert, & Proctor, 2003;Los, 1999;Nieuwenhuis & Monsell, 2002;Sohn & Anderson, 2003;Yeung & Monsell, 2003).…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

A critical test of the failure-to-engage theory of task switching

Brown

Lehmann

Poboka

2006

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When people switch between two tasks, their performance on each is worse than when they perform that task in isolation. One theory of this "switch cost" is the failure-to-engage (FTE) theory, which posits that observed responses are a simple mixture of prepared and unprepared response strategies. The probability that participants use prepared processes can be manipulated experimentally (e.g., by changing preparation time). The FTE theory is a binary mixture model and therefore makes a strong prediction about the existence of fixed points in response time distributions. We found evidence contradicting this prediction, using data from 20 participants in a standard task-switching paradigm. In this article, we examine reasons for the failure of the FTE theory, and we demonstrate that a generalized version of FTE theory accommodates our data.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 85%

A critical test of the failure-to-engage theory of task switching

Brown

Lehmann

Poboka

2006

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This dissociation suggests that generic preparation reflects the basic functional process, in which case facilitation of this process by repetition priming seems like an obvious candidate account of switch cost. Priming, or some related automatic or passive process, is responsible for some amount of switch cost, as measured both with cuing paradigms (Arrington, Altmann, & Carr, 2003;Meiran, Chorev, & Sapir, 2000;Sohn & Anderson, 2001 and with alternating runs (Koch, 2003;Ruthruff, Remington, & Johnston, 2001;Yeung & Monsell, 2003), and although priming does not eliminate switch cost with longer intertrial intervals (Sohn & Anderson, 2003), it can last for minutes (Allport & Wylie, 2000;Waszak, Hommel, & Allport, 2003) or in general for days (e.g., Buck-Gengler & Healy, 2001), so a priming account is by no means ruled out. In the end, a priming account of switch cost, even if it must assume action at longer temporal intervals, may be more parsimonious than the reconfiguration view (Monsell, 2003), which requires a brand new mechanism to be added to the inventory just to explain switch cost.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Koch (2001, as noted above) and Arrington (2002, Experiment 2) both manipulated SOA between subjects and found no switch preparation. Sohn and Anderson (2003) manipulated SOA between subjects and found switch preparation, but crossed their manipulation with a within-subjects manipulation of task "foreknowledge"-on alternating blocks, participants received no task cue before stimulus onset. Thus, the opportunity to prepare during the SOA was effectively nullified on alternating blocks, so this study may not contradict the notion that between-subjects SOA manipulations fail to produce switch preparation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA

Altmann

2004

Memory & Cognition

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common finding in task-switching studies is switch preparation (commonly known as the preparation effect), in which a longer interval between task cue and trial stimulus (i.e., a longer stimulus onset asynchrony, or SOA) reduces the cost of switching to a different task. Three experiments link switch preparation to within-subjects manipulations of SOA. In Experiment 1, SOA was randomized within subjects, producing switch preparation that was more pronounced when the SOA switched from the previous trial than when the SOA repeated. In Experiment 2, SOA was blocked within subjects, producing switch preparation but not on the first block of trials. In Experiment 3, SOA was manipulated between subjects with sufficient statisticalpower to detect switch preparation, but the effect was absent. The results favor an encoding view of cognitive control, but show that any putative switching mechanism reacts lazily when exposed to only one SOA.

show abstract

“…Indeed, many authors consider priming itself as a possible underlying mechanism for explaining task switch costs (e.g., Allport, Styles, & Hsieh, 1994;Sohn & Anderson, 2003). For this reason, disentangling the two mechanisms may be very difficult and even impossible because evidence for the strategy switch cost mechanism does not exclude the priming mechanism.…”

Section: Towards An Explanation Of the Perseveration Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Single Versus Repeated Previous Strategy Use on Individuals' Subsequent Strategy Choice

Schillemans¹,

Luwel

Ceulemans³

et al. 2012

PSYCHOL BELG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown that participants' strategy choices can be influenced by the previously-used strategy. This perseveration effect has been demonstrated both after a repeated use of the previous strategy (e.g., Schillemans, Luwel, Bulté, Onghena, & Verschaffel, 2009), but also after a single use of the previous strategy (Lemaire & Lecacheur, 2010). In the present study, we tested whether this perseveration effect would be stronger after a repeated than after a single previous strategy application. We were able to replicate the perseveration effect but we did not find evidence for an influence of the number of previous strategy applications on the strength of this effect. An additional cluster analysis revealed that only about one third of the participants was susceptible for the perseveration effect. The theoretical, methodological, and educational implications of these results are discussed.

show abstract

Stimulus-related priming during task switching

Cited by 29 publications

References 16 publications

A critical test of the failure-to-engage theory of task switching

A critical test of the failure-to-engage theory of task switching

The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA

The Effect of Single Versus Repeated Previous Strategy Use on Individuals' Subsequent Strategy Choice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About