Stimulus-Related Inhibition of Task Set During Task Switching
Abstract
Performance after a shifting of task is supported by the inhibition of the executed task, as revealed by slower reaction times (RTs) on alternating compared to nonalternating task sequences (ABA vs CBA). In the present study we investigated the role of stimulus processing in the establishment of task inhibition during task switching, irrespective of the response selection process. Comparing performance on AbA and CbA task sequences within a procedure in which the b-task only involved stimulus encoding processes for later comparison but response selection did not occur, we found slower RTs on AbA compared to CbA task sequences. This revealed that inhibition of the executed task can be triggered at the stimulus processing stage of the new task. In accordance, inhibition only emerged when interference between tasks occurred at the stimulus level, due to stimuli having features relevant for both the executed and the upcoming task.
References
(2000). Task switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In , Attention and performance XVII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 35–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In , Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(2005). The influence of cue type on backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1030–1042.
(2002). The influence of cue-task association and location on switch cost and alternating-switch cost. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56, 18–29.
(2000). Executive control in set switching: residual switch cost and task-set inhibition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 33–41.
(1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396.
(2003). The mental representation of ordinal sequences is spatially organized. Cognition, 87, 87–95.
(2003). Backward inhibition as a means of sequential task-set control: evidence for reduction of task competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 289–297.
(1998). The demonstration of short-term consolidation. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 138–202.
(2006). Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching. Memory & Cognition, 34, 433–444.
(2002). Process interference and code overlap in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 192–201.
(2002). Inhibition of action rules. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 93–99.
(2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4–26.
(2000a). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In , Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 377–399). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
(2000b). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234–249.
(1995). Cost of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.
(2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 92–105.
(2006). Selective stopping in task switching: The role of response selection and response execution. Experimental Psychology, 53, 48–57.
(2005). Inhibiting responses when switching: Does it matter? Experimental Psychology, 52, 125–130.
(2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic S–R bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 361–413.
(2003). Cognitive control processes during an anticipated switch of task. European Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 667–672.
