The Role of the Phonological Loop in Task Switching Performance: The Effect of Articulatory Suppression in the Alternating Runs Paradigm

Abstract

We examined the role of the phonological loop in task switching performance in a prevalently used research paradigm, that is, the alternating runs paradigm. This paradigm basically requires participants to alternate tasks on every second trial (i.e., AABBAABB). In this study, participants were required to alternate the letter and numerical decision tasks in cue-present and cue-absent conditions under control, articulatory suppression and foot tapping conditions. The results showed that error rates were larger and reaction times were longer in the articulatory suppression condition than in the control and tapping conditions for both switch and nonswitch trials in two cue conditions. These findings indicate that the phonological loop contributes to task performance not only in the switching trials but also in situations where the maintenance of task sequence information is required.

Verbal representation in task order control: An examination with transition and task cues in random task switching

“…They suggested that a critical function of verbalization is the endogenous sequencing of tasks on the basis of the sequential characteristics of language. In keeping with earlier arguments presented by Saeki and Saito (2004b), Bryck and Mayr also indicated that articulatory suppression does not interfere with the process of switching between tasks; instead, verbalization plays a critical role in the control of the serial order of tasks.…”

“…Verbal representations likely underpin the process of sequential task decision, and articulatory suppression in the predictable and sequential task-switching paradigms might interfere with participants completed pure-task blocks, in which they performed only one task (i.e., only the parity task or only the magnitude task). Because previous studies had suggested that articulatory suppression increases the mixing cost but not the switch cost (Bryck & Mayr, 2005;Saeki & Saito, 2004b), we predicted the same pattern of results if articulatory suppression had an effect on task performance.…”

“…Saeki et al manipulated the preparation interval by changing the length of the response-stimulus interval (RSI) in the list paradigm and reported that the effects of articulatory suppression on the alternation cost did not differ between the short-RSI (150 msec) and the long-RSI (600 and 1,200 msec) conditions. In consideration of a suggestion that the locus of articulatory suppression on the sequential task switching should be in the mixing cost (Bryck & Mayr, 2005;Saeki & Saito, 2004b), the results of Saeki et al indicate that the length of the preparation interval may not modulate the articulatory suppression effects on the mixing cost in RTs. Task-switching, task repetition, and pure-task performances were tested under three concurrent task conditions: control (without a secondary task), articulatory suppression, and foot tapping.…”

“…The difference in performance between switching trials and repetition trials, called the switching cost, reflects the demand of the switching task per se, rather than the demand of maintaining information about task order. Saeki and Saito (2004b) found that RTs were longer and error rates were higher under articulatory suppression conditions than under silent control and foot-tapping conditions in the alternating-runs paradigm, using a format that involved alternating between letter judgments and numerical judgments on every second trial. However, articulatory suppression had equivalent effects on switch trials and nonswitch trials and had no effect on the switching cost.…”

“…A large body of literature exists on the task-switching paradigm. However, in this study, we focused on a specific issue suggested by previous studies-namely, that verbal representations are useful mediators for efficient task-switching performance, especially in predictable and sequential task switching (Baddeley, Chincotta, & Adlam, 2001;Bryck & Mayr, 2005;Emerson & Miyake, 2003;Saeki & Saito, 2004a, 2004bSaeki, Saito, & Kawaguchi, 2006).…”