The role of response repetition in task switching.

Abstract

When switching between tasks, participants are sometimes required to use different response sets for each task. Thus, task switch and response set switch are confounded. In 5 experiments, the authors examined transitions of response within a linear 4-finger arrangement. A random baseline condition was compared with the cuing of specific response subsets grouped by hand or by finger equivalence, and these subsets were examined in both single task and task-switching designs. Results showed that part of the task switch cost is associated with switching between response sets. Furthermore, the analysis revealed a novel effect: When task switching and repetition trials are mixed, a bias towards switching the response and/or hand is found in task repetition trials. Response repetition is hindered when a task switch is expected, even for those trials when a switch of task does not occur. The results demonstrate executive processes involved in task set configuration closely depend on the motoric processing of the response set. The results are also important for current theories of task set control.

Stimulation of contacts in ventral but not dorsal subthalamic nucleus normalizes response switching in Parkinson's disease

“…a ‘change all’ signal), (ii) increased difficulty uncoupling recently established stimulus-response mappings, or (iii) the selective suppression of the last-executed (and possibly still active) response (Rogers & Monsell, 1995). Current behavioral evidence more strongly supports the latter, selective suppression, hypothesis (Cooper & Mari-Beffa, 2008; Hübner & Druey, 2006, 2008). We speculate that this difficulty in repeating the same response when a switch occurs might be a ‘built in’ basal ganglia design, consistent with the computational requirement for a clean switch to prevent dithering (Redgrave, Prescott, & Gurney, 1999).…”

“…The controls exhibited the curious, but well-replicated, pattern of an RT switch cost for repeat, but not alternate responses (Cooper & Mari-Beffa, 2008; Kiesel et al, 2010; Rogers & Monsell, 1995). This pattern may result from: (i) a tendency to switch the rule and response simultaneously (i.e.…”

“…2). This was done based upon the classic finding that the switch cost differs for repeat and alternate responses (Cooper & Mari-Beffa, 2008; Kiesel et al, 2010; Rogers & Monsell, 1995). During the experiment proper, participants completed 180 trials; totaling thirty switch trials and 150 nonswitch trials.…”

Cue-switch costs in task-switching: cue priming or control processes?

“…For instance, suppose participants are engaged in switching between responding to the colour or the shape of targets (see, e.g. Cooper & Marí-Beffa, 2008), and that the possible colours are blue and red mapped to left and right key presses. There are many levels of cue-transparency possible, e.g.…”

Strategic modulation of response inhibition in task-switching

“…The basic idea is that task representations that were active on the previous trial are inhibited—in whole or in part—in order to control the error rate by reducing their perseverative influence on the current processing. From the different components of a task representation that could be inhibited, the current study is concerned with the inhibition of response representations (Hübner and Druey, 2006; Cooper and Marí-Beffa, 2008). For simplicity, we will call this type of inhibition response inhibition .…”