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

Abstract

Recent task-switching studies in which a predictable task sequence has been used have indicated that verbal representation contributes to the control of task order information. The present study focused on the role of verbal representation in sequential task decisions, which are an important part of task order control, and examined the effects of articulatory suppression in a random-task-cuing paradigm with two different types of cues presented just before the presentation of a stimulus: a transition cue and a task cue. The former cue provided information only about switching or repeating the task, whereas the latter was associated directly with the identity of the task (i.e., indicating a parity or a magnitude task). In Experiment 1, in which transition cues guided task sequences, articulatory suppression impaired performance in both repetition and switch trials, thereby increasing the mixing costs. In Experiment 2, in which a task cue, rather than a transition cue, was presented to examine the influence of a cue-decoding process, articulatory suppression had no specific effect on task performance. Experiment 3, in which the transition cue and the task cue were randomly presented in the same block to equalize the memory load and task strategy for the two types of cues, confirmed that articulatory suppression significantly increased the mixing costs only in transition cue trials. The results from the three experiments indicated that the use of verbal representation is effective in sequential task decision-that is, in selecting a task set on the basis of transient task order information in both repetition and switch trials.

Role of Working Memory in Task Switching

“…On the one hand, it has been shown that the requirement to verbalise the task goals enhances task switching performance (e.g., Goschke, 2000). On the other hand, taxing verbal working memory, in particular the phonological loop in Baddeley's model, makes task switching more error prone and slower (Baddeley, Chincotta, & Adlam, 2001;Bryck & Mayr, 2005;Emerson & Miyake, 2003;Liefooghe, Vandierendonck, Muyllaert, Verbruggen, & Vanneste, 2005;Miyake, Emerson, Padilla, & Ahn, 2004;Saeki & Saito, 2004a;Saeki & Saito, 2004b;Saeki & Saito, 2009;Saeki, Saito, & Kawaguchi, 2006). These findings support the hypothesis that maintaining a verbal representation of the task goal in working memory helps to keep attention focused on the task at hand.…”

A chain-retrieval model for voluntary task switching

“…This proposal is also consistent with the findings reported by Bryck and Mayr (2005) which suggest that verbalization of sequential information in task switching is critical for maintenance of sequential courses of actions or sequential plans. These and other studies (Baddeley, Chincotta, & Adlam, 2001;Emerson & Miyake, 2003;Miyake, Emerson, Padilla, & Ahn, 2004;Saeki & Saito, 2009) strongly indicate that working memory forms a basis for task switching without implying that shortage of working memory capacity would completely disrupt task-switching performance.…”

Breaking a habit: A further role of the phonological loop in action control

“…This extends the results of earlier studies, concerned with rapid switching, to our more long- To explain our results, comparison of the demands placed on switching in the two different paradigms may be helpful. In rapid task switching, negative effects of suppression have been observed when trial-to-trial uncertainty is high (Saeki & Saito, 2009). Thus, the problem appears to be how participants keep track of where they are in a sequence of alternating tasks, a process that is probably facilitated by the subvocalization of appropriate cues (e.g., "plus, minus, plus .…”