Task switching and response correspondence in the psychological refractory period paradigm.

Abstract

Three experiments examined the effects of task switching and response correspondence in a psychological refractory period paradigm. A letter task (vowel-consonant) and a digit task (odd-even) were combined to form 4 possible dual-task pairs in each trial: letter-letter, letter-digit, digit-digit, and digit-letter. Foreknowledge of task transition (repeat or switch) and task identity (letter or digit) was varied across experiments: no foreknowledge in Experiment 1, partial foreknowledge (task transition only) in Experiment 2, and full foreknowledge in Experiment 3. For all experiments, the switch cost for Task 2 was additive with stimulus onset asynchrony, and the response-correspondence effect for Task 2 was numerically smaller in the switch condition than in the repeat condition. These outcomes suggest that reconfiguration for Task 2 takes place after the central processing of Task 1 and that the crosstalk correspondence effect is due to response activation by way of stimulus-response associations.

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

“…Other researchers have also observed data that are generally consistent with the FTE theory or, at least, are not in direct contradiction to it. Lien et al (2003) found evidence supporting the assumption that executive control processes can accommodate processing of only one task at a time, consistent with the mixture assumption of FTE. Los (1999) found evidence in favor of models that include two separate response strategies, such as the FTE theory (as opposed to criterion shifting models).…”

“…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).…”

Shifting between mental sets: An individual differences approach to commonalities and differences of task switching components.

“…More specifically, experimental paradigms measured switching at the judgment level (as in the vast majority of task-switch studies; e.g., Altmann, 2004;Arrington & Logan, 2004;Dreisbach, Haider, & Kluwe, 2002;M. Hübner, Kluwe, Luna-Rodriguez, & Peters, 2004;Koch, 2001;Lien, Schweickert, & Proctor, 2003;Logan & Bundesen, 2003;Logan, Schneider, & Bundesen, 2007;Mayr & Kliegl, 2000;Meiran, 1996;Nieuwenhuis & Monsell, 2002;Oriet & Jolcoeur, 2003;Rogers & Monsell, 1995;Schneider & Logan, 2006;Waszak, Hommel, & Allport, 2003), at the stimulus dimension level (e.g., R. Hübner et al, 2001;Mayr & Keele, 2000), at the level of the responses (in terms of response sets; e.g., Philipp & Koch, 2005), and at the level of (pure) stimulus-response mappings (e.g., Rushworth et al, 2002Rushworth et al, , 2005Shaffer, 1965).…”

Response execution, selection, or activation: What is sufficient for response-related repetition effects under task shifting?

“…In the PRP paradigm, two temporally overlapping tasks, T 1 and T 2 , have to be performed in short succession for the consecutive stimuli, S 1 and S 2 , respectively. This paradigm has already been used for the investigation of response repetition effects under task repetition and task shift conditions (e.g., Lien, Schweickert, & Proctor, 2003;Schuch & Koch, 2004). At first sight, this may seem surprising because different effectors (e.g., left and right hand) are usually used for responding to the individual tasks.…”