Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Task Switching: Cognitive Control in Sequential Multitasking

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Human Multitasking

Abstract

This chapter introduces basic concepts and methodologies in research on task-set control. To this end, key concepts are defined (such as “task” and “task set,” which refers to the mental representation of cognitive and behavioral task requirements). The empirical part of this chapter reviews the large body of research using variants of task switching. The pros and cons of different experimental task-switching paradigms are discussed. A major difference among paradigms is how they allow examination of proactive control, and findings on task preparation are reviewed in greater detail. However, because active task preparation is required to counteract interference stemming from between-task conflicts, this chapter also devotes a major section on a variety of interference phenomena in task switching, such as item-specific task binding, response-repetition costs, congruency effects, inhibition, and more. Based on this review of empirical phenomena in task switching, the chapter describes and systematizes theoretical accounts and models of task switching. Finally, this chapter ends with a brief outlook on future research issues, which include the role of interindividual differences taking gender-related differences in task switching as an example. Together, this chapter provides a comprehensive review of the current state of research and theory in task switching.

The authors would like to thank Aureliu Lavric and Hermann Müller for very helpful comments on an earlier version of this chapter as well as Greta Petersen for her help with preparing the manuscript and the figures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Please note that it is difficult to differentiate very clearly between the terms “binding” and “association.” The term “binding” is typically taken to refer to a short-term consequence of feature integration (e.g., Frings et al. 2020, for a recent review). However, it has become usual to refer to long-term bindings, which are essentially equivalent to associations (even though there might be a difference in “theoretical spirit,” with binding approaches typically being based on “episodic,” exemplar-based memory approaches rather than associative memory approaches).

  2. 2.

    Note that Greenwald (1972) defined ideomotor compatibility in a narrower sense in terms of identity of stimulus and anticipated sensory response effect. That is, hearing “One” and saying ONE would be ideomotor compatible and modality compatible, whereas hearing “One” and saying TWO would no longer be ideomotor compatible but still preserves modality compatibility in terms of the match of stimulus modality and modality of the sensory response effects (both auditory).

  3. 3.

    For analogous findings in the PRP paradigm, see Janczyk et al. (2014).

  4. 4.

    Please note, however, that the model is agnostic regarding residual switch costs. If the preparation time is sufficiently long so that cue encoding can be completed before the target stimulus is presented, the model does not predict switch costs.

References

  • Allport, [D.] A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta, & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Conscious and Nonconscious Information Processing: Attention and Performance XV (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (2000). Task switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII (pp. 35–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, E. M. (2002). Functional decay of memory for tasks. Psychological Research, 66, 287–297.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, E. M. (2004). The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA. Memory & Cognition, 32, 153–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, E. M. (2005). Repetition priming in task switching: Do the benefits dissipate? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 535–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, E. M. (2007). Comparing switch costs: Alternating runs and explicit cuing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 475–483. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.475

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, E. M. (2011). Testing probability matching and episodic retrieval accounts of response repetition effects in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 935–951.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, E. M. (2014). The extended runs procedure and restart cost. In J. A. Grange & G. Houghton (Eds.), Task Switching and Cognitive Control (pp. 101–116). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2002). Forgetting to remember: The functional relationship of decay and interference. Psychological Science, 13, 27–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Review, 115, 602–639.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111, 1036–1060.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Antoniou, M. (2019). The advantages of bilingualism debate. Annual Review of Linguistics, 5, 395–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrington, C. M. (2008). The effect of stimulus availability on task choice in voluntary task switching. Memory & Cognition, 36, 991–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2004). The cost of a voluntary task switch. Psychological Science, 15, 610–615.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arrington, C. M., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Voluntary task switching: Chasing the elusive homunculus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 683–702.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arrington, C. M., & Rhodes, K. M. (2010). Perceptual asymmetries influence task choice: The effect of lateralised presentation of hierarchical stimuli. Laterality, 15, 501–513.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arrington, C. M., & Weaver, S. M. (2015). Rethinking volitional control over task choice in multitask environments: Use of a stimulus set selection strategy in voluntary task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 664–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrington, C. M., & Yates, M. M. (2009). The role of attentional networks in voluntary task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 660–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrington, C. M., Reiman, K. M., & Weaver, S. M. (2014). Voluntary task switching. In J. Grange and G. Houghton (Eds.), Task Switching and Cognitive Control (pp. 117–136). New York: Oxford.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Arrington, C. M., Weaver, S. M., & Pauker, R. L. (2010). Stimulus-based priming of task choice during voluntary task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1060–1067.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aufschnaiter, S., Kiesel, A., & Thomaschke, R. (2018). Transfer of time-based task expectancy across different timing environments. Psychological Research, 82, 230–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aufschnaiter, S., Kiesel, A., & Thomaschke, R. (2021). Time-based transition expectancy in task switching: Do we need to know the task to switch to? Journal of Cognition, 4,19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Aufschnaiter, S., Kiesel, A., Dreisbach, G., Wenke, D., & Thomaschke, R. (2018). Time-based expectancy in temporally structured task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44, 856–870.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braem, S. (2017). Conditioning task switching behavior. Cognition, 166, 272–276.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, D. A., & Arrington, C. M. (2018). Assessing the role of reward in task selection using a reward-based voluntary task switching paradigm. Psychological Research, 82, 54–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braver, T. S., Reynolds, J. R., & Donaldson, D. I. (2003). Neural mechanisms of transient and sustained cognitive control during task switching. Neuron, 39, 713–726.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Braverman, A., & Meiran, N. (2015). Conflict control in task conflict and response conflict. Psychological Research, 79, 238–248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. W., Reynolds, J. R., & Braver, T. S. (2007). A computational model of fractionated conflict-control mechanisms in task-switching. Cognitive Psychology, 55, 37–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brüning, J., & Manzey, D. (2018). Flexibility of individual multitasking strategies in task-switching with preview: are preferences for serial versus overlapping task processing dependent on between-task conflict? Psychological Research, 82, 92–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bugg, J. M., & Braver, T. S. (2016). Proactive control of irrelevant task rules during cued task-switching. Psychological Research, 80, 860–876.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, K. M., Arrington, C. M., & Weywadt, C. (2011). Working memory capacity modulates task performance but has little influence on task choice. Memory & Cognition, 39, 708–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII (pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demanet, J., Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2010). Voluntary task switching under load: Contribution of top-down and bottom-up factors in goal-directed behavior. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 387–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desmet, C., Fias, W., & Brass, M. (2012). Preparing or executing the wrong task: The influence on switch effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1172–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dignath, D., Johannsen, L., Hommel, B., & Kiesel, A. (2019). Contextual control of conflict: Reconciling cognitive-control and episodic-retrieval accounts of sequential conflict modulation: Binding of control-states into event-files. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45, 1265–1270.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., & Kluwe, R. H. (2002). Preparatory processes in the task-switching paradigm: Evidence from the use of probability cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 468–483.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., & Haider, H. (2007). The role of task-rules and stimulus-response mappings in the task switching paradigm. Psychological Research, 71, 383–392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Druey, M. D., & Hübner, R. (2008). Response inhibition under task switching: Its strength depends on the amount of task-irrelevant response activation. Psychological Research, 72, 515–527.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elchlepp, H., Lavric, A., Chambers, C. D., & Verbruggen, F. (2016). Proactive inhibitory control: A general biasing account. Cognitive Psychology, 86, 27–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Eppinger, B., Goschke, T., & Musslick, S. (2021) Meta-control: From psychology to computational neuroscience. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 21, 447–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fintor, E., Poljac, E., Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2020). Modality compatibility biases voluntary choice of response modality in task switching. Psychological Research, 84, 380–388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fintor, E., Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2018). Emerging features of modality mappings in task switching: Modality compatibility requires variability at the level of both stimulus and response modality. Psychological Research, 82, 121–133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forrest, C. L. DD., Monsell, S., & McLaren, I. P. L. (2014). Is performance in task-cuing experiments mediated by task set selection or associative compound retrieval? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 40, 1002–1024.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forstmann, B. U., Brass, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Methodological and empirical issues when dissociating cue-related from task-related processes in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Psychological Research, 71, 393–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forstmann, B. U., Brass, M., Koch, I., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2005). Internally generated and directly cued task sets: an investigation with fMRI. Neuropsychologia, 43, 943–952.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friedgen, E., Koch, I., & Stephan, D. N. (2020). Modality compatibility in task switching depends on processing codes and task demands. Psychological Research, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frings, C., Hommel, B., Koch, I., Rothermund, K., Dignath, D., Giesen, C., Kiesel, A., Kunde, W., Mayr, S., Moeller, B., Möller, M., Pfister, R., & Philipp, A. M. (2020). Binding and retrieval in action control (BRAC). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24, 375–387.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fröber, K., & Dreisbach, G. (2017). Keep flexible–keep switching! The influence of forced task switching on voluntary task switching. Cognition, 162, 48–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fröber, K., Pfister, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2019). Increasing reward prospect promotes cognitive flexibility: Direct evidence from voluntary task switching with double registration. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 1926–1944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2005). Linking inhibition to activation in the control of task sequences. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 530–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Cue-task associations in task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60A, 762–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2008). Dissociating cue-related and task-related processes in task inhibition: Evidence from using a 2:1 cue-to-task mapping. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 51–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2014). Cue type affects preparatory influences on task inhibition. Acta Psychologica, 148, 12–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gade, M., Schuch, S., Druey, M., & Koch, I. (2014). Inhibitory control in task switching. In J. Grange & G. Houghton (Eds.), Task switching and cognitive control (pp. 137–159). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gade, M., Souza, A. S., Druey, M. D., & Oberauer, K. (2017). Analogous selection processes in declarative and procedural working memory: N-2 list-repetition and task-repetition costs. Memory & Cognition, 45, 26–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gade, M., & Steinhauser, M. (2020). The impact of cue format and cue transparency on task switching performance. Psychological Research, 84, 1346–1369.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1941). A critical review of the concept of set in contemporary experimental psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 38, 781–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S. J., & Shallice, T. (2002). Task switching: A PDP model. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 297–337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gollan, T. H., Kleinman, D., & Wierenga, C. E. (2014). What’s easier: Doing what you want, or being told what to do? Cued versus voluntary language and task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 2167–2195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 331–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotler, A., Meiran, N., & Tzelgov, J. (2003). Nonintentional task set activation: Evidence from implicit task sequence learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 890–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, B., & Lavric, A. (2021). Preparing to switch languages versus preparing to switch tasks: Which is more effective? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grange, J. A. (2016). Temporal distinctiveness in task switching: Assessing the mixture-distribution assumption. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 251.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (2014). Models of cognitive control in task switching. In J. A. Grange & G. Houghton (Eds.), Task Switching and Cognitive Control (pp. 160–199). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grange, J. A., Juvina, I., & Houghton, G. (2013). On costs and benefits of n−2 repetitions in task switching: Towards a behavioural marker of cognitive inhibition. Psychological Research, 77, 211–222.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grange, J. A., Kedra, P., & Walker, A. (2019). The effect of practice on inhibition in task switching: Controlling for episodic retrieval. Acta Psychologica, 192, 59–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grange, J. A., Kowalczyk, A. W., & O'Loughlin, R. (2017). The effect of episodic retrieval on inhibition in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 1568–1583.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grange, J. A., & Cross, E. (2015). Can time-based decay explain temporal distinctiveness effects in task switching? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 19–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G. (1972). On doing two things at once: Time sharing as a function of ideomotor compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 52–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grzyb, K. R., & Hübner, R. (2013). Excessive response-repetition costs under task switching: How response inhibition amplifies response conflict. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 126–139.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hazeltine, E., Ruthruff, E., & Remington, R. W. (2006). The role of input and output modality pairings in dual-task performance: Evidence for content-dependent central interference. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 291–345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Herd, S.A., O’Reilly, R.C., Hazy, T.E., Chatham, C.H, Brant, A.M., & Friedman, N.P. (2014). A neural network model of individual differences in task switching abilities. Neuropsychologia, 62, 375–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, H., Schmidtke, V., & Kleinsorge, T. (2001). Implicit learning of sequences of tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 967–983.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, P., Koch, I., & Karbach, J. (2019). Putting a stereotype to the test: The case of gender differences in multitasking costs in task-switching and dual-task situations. PLoS ONE, 14: e0220150.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, J., Kiesel, A., & Sebald, A. (2003). Task switches under Go/NoGo conditions and the decomposition of switch costs. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 15, 101–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horner, A. J., & Henson, R. N. (2009). Bindings between stimuli and multiple response codes dominate long-lag repetition priming in speeded classification tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 757–779.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horoufchin, H., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2011). The dissipating task-repetition benefit in cued task switching: Task-set decay or temporal distinctiveness? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 455–472.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Imburgio, M. J., & Orr, J. M. (2021). Component processes underlying voluntary task selection: Separable contributions of task-set inertia and reconfiguration. Cognition, 212, 104685.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, C. P., Gould, S. J. J., Li, S. Y. W., Brumby, D. P., & Cox, A. L. (2015). Integrating knowledge of multitasking and interruptions across different perspectives and research methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 79, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, whole nr. 89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, K., De Baene, W., Koch, I., & Brass, M. (2013). A review of the role of cue processing in task switching. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 221, 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurczyk, V., Fröber, K., & Dreisbach, G. (2019). Increasing reward prospect motivates switching to the more difficult task. Motivation Science, 5, 295–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jurczyk, V., Mittelstädt, V., & Fröber, K. (2020). Does temporal predictability of tasks influence task choice? Psychological Research, 85, 1066–1083.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Janczyk, M., Pfister, R., Wallmeier, G., & Kunde, W. (2014). Exceptions to the PRP effect? A comparison of prepared and unconditioned reflexes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 40, 776–786.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandalowski, S. R., Seibold, J. C., Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2019). Examining binding effects on task switch costs and response-repetition effects: Variations of the cue modality and stimulus modality in task switching. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapustova, S. V., Ivanova, M. V., Petrushevsky, A. G., Fedina, O. N., & Zhavoronkova, L. A. (2015). Sex-related differences in task switching: An fMRI study. Human Physiology, 41, 611–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karayanidis, F., Jamadar, S., Ruge, H., Phillips, N., Heathcote, A., & Forstmann, B. U. (2010). Advance preparation in task-switching: converging evidence from behavioral, brain activation, and model-based approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 25.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, Y., Shencar, Y., & Meiran, N. (2009). Choosing to switch: Spontaneous task switching despite associated behavioral costs. Acta Psychologica, 131, 120–128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesel, A., Wendt, M., & Peters, A. (2007). Task switching: On the origin of response in congruency. Psychological Research, 71, 117–125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinsorge, T., & Heuer, H. (1999). Hierarchical switching in a multi-dimensional task space. Psychological Research, 62, 300–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 27, 1474–1486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I. (2003). The role of external cues for endogenous advance reconfiguration in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 488–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I. (2005). Sequential task predictability in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 107–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I. (2008). Instruction effects in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 448–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., & Allport, A. (2006). Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching. Memory & Cognition, 34, 433–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., Frings, C., & Schuch, S. (2018). Explaining response-repetition effects in task switching: Evidence from switching cue modality suggests episodic binding and response inhibition. Psychological Research, 82, 570–579.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., Lawo, V., Fels, J., & Vorländer, M. (2011). Switching in the cocktail party – Exploring intentional control of auditory selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1140–1147.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2005). Effects of response selection on the task-repetition benefit in task switching. Memory & Cognition, 33, 624–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., Philipp, A. M., & Gade, M. (2006). Chunking in task sequences modulates task inhibition. Psychological Science, 17, 346–350.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—An integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144, 557–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., Prinz, W., & Allport, A. (2005). Involuntary retrieval in alphabet-arithmetic tasks: Task-mixing and task-switching costs. Psychological Research, 69, 252–261.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., Schuch, S., Vu, K. P. L., & Proctor, R. W. (2011). Response-repetition effects in task switching—Dissociating effects of anatomical and spatial response discriminability. Acta Psychologica, 136, 399–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kool, W., & Botvinick, M. (2014). A labor/leisure tradeoff in cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 131–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kool, W., & Botvinick, M. (2018). Mental labour. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 899–908.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowalczyk, A. W., & Grange, J. A (2020). The effect of episodic retrieval on inhibition in task switching: A diffusion model analysis. Psychological Research, 84, 1965–1999.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kray, J., & Lindenberger, U. (2000). Adult age differences in task switching. Psychology and Aging, 15, 126–147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Künzell, S., Broeker, L., Dignath, D., Ewolds, H., Raab, M., & Thomaschke, R. (2018). What is a task? An ideomotor perspective. Psychological Research, 82, 4–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kurzban, R., Duckworth, A., Kable, J. W., & Myers, J. (2013). An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 661–679.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lavric, A., Mizon, G. A., & Monsell, S. (2008). Neurophysiological signature of effective anticipatory task-set control: A task-switching investigation. European Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 1016–1029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lenartowicz, A., Yeung, N., & Cohen, J. D. (2011). No-go trials can modulate switch cost by interfering with effects of task preparation. Psychological Research, 75, 66–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liefooghe, B., Demanet, J., & Vandierendonck, A. (2009). Is advance reconfiguration in voluntary task switching affected by the design employed? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 850–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 575–599.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 832–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Longman, C. S., Lavric, A., & Monsell, S. (2013). More attention to attention? An eye-tracking investigation of selection of perceptual attributes during a task switch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1142–1151.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Longman, C. S., Kiesel, A., & Verbruggen, F. (2020). Learning in the absence of overt practice: A novel (previously unseen) stimulus can trigger retrieval of an unpracticed response. Psychological Research, 84, 1065–1083.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Los, S. A. (1999). Identifying stimuli of different perceptual categories in mixed blocks of trials: evidence for cost in switching between computational processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 3–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Los, S. A., & Van der Burg, E. (2010). The origin of switch costs: Task preparation or task application? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1895–1915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2014). Crossmodal attention switching: Auditory dominance in temporal discrimination tasks. Acta Psychologica, 153, 139–146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mäntylää, T. (2013). Gender differences in multitasking reflect spatial ability. Psychological Science, 24, 514–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U. (2002). Inhibition of action rules. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 93–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., & Bell, T. (2006). On how to be unpredictable: Evidence from the voluntary task-switching paradigm. Psychological Science, 17, 774–780.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 362–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., Kuhns, D., & Rieter, M. (2013). Eye-movements reveal dynamics of task control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 14, 489–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medeiros-Ward, N., Watson, J. M., & Strayer, D. L. (2015). On supertaskers and the neural basis of efficient multitasking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 876–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423–1442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (2000). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234–249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., & Kessler, Y. (2008). The task rule congruency effect in task switching reflects activated long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 137–157.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211–253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., Kessler, Y., & Adi-Japha, E. (2008). Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): A theoretical framework for task switching. Psychological Research, 72, 473–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mittelstädt, V., Dignath, D., Schmidt-Ott, M., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Exploring the repetition bias in voluntary task switching. Psychological Research, 82, 78–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittelstädt, V., Miller, J., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Trading off switch costs and stimulus availability benefits: An investigation of voluntary task-switching behavior in a predictable dynamic multitasking environment. Memory & Cognition, 46, 699–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittelstädt, V., Miller, J., & Kiesel, A. (2019). Linking task selection to task performance: Internal and predictable external processing constraints jointly influence voluntary task switching behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45, 1529–1584.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., Emerson, M. J., Padilla, F., & Ahn, J.-C. (2004). Inner speech as a retrieval aid for task goals: the effects of cue type and articulatory suppression in the random task cuing paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 115, 123–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miyake, A., & Friedman, N. P. (2012). The nature and organization of individual differences in executive functions: Four general conclusions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 8–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (1996). Control of mental processes. In V. Bruce (Ed.), Unsolved Mysteries of the Mind (pp. 93–148). Hove, England UK: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 493–516.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S., Sumner, P., & Waters, H. (2003). Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches. Memory & Cognition, 31(3), 327–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moutsopoulou, K., Pfeuffer, C., Kiesel, A., Yang, Q., & Waszak, F. (2019). How long is long-term priming? Classification and action priming in the scale of days. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72, 1183–1199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moutsopoulou, K., Yang, Q., Desantis, A., & Waszak, F. (2015). Stimulus–classification and stimulus–action associations: Effects of repetition learning and durability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1744–1757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, R., Karayanidis, F., Davies, A., & Michie, P. T. (2006). Components of task-set reconfiguration: Differential effects of ‘switch-to’ and ‘switch-away’ cues. Brain Research, 1121, 160–176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nieuwenhuis, S., & Monsell, S. (2002). Residual costs in task switching: Testing the failure-to-engage hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 86–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberauer, K., Souza, A. S., Druey, M. D., & Gade M., (2013). Analogous mechanisms of selection and updating in declarative and procedural working memory: Experiments and a computational model. Cognitive Psychology, 66, 157–211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, J. M., Carp, J., & Weissman, D. H. (2012). The influence of response conflict on voluntary task switching: A novel test of the conflict monitoring model. Psychological Research, 76, 60–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeuffer, C. U., Hosp, T., Kimmig, E., Moutsopoulou, K., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Defining stimulus representation in stimulus–response associations formed on the basis of task execution and verbal codes. Psychological Research, 82, 744–758.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeuffer, C. U., Moutsopoulou, K., Pfister, R., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2017). The power of words: On item-specific stimulus–response associations formed in the absence of action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 328–347.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeuffer, C. U., Moutsopoulou, K., Waszak, F., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Multiple priming instances increase the impact of practice-based but not verbal code-based stimulus-response associations. Acta Psychologica, 184, 100–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philipp, A. M., Jolicoeur, P., Falkenstein, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Response selection and response execution in task switching: Evidence from a go-signal paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 1062–1075.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Poljac, E., & Yeung, N. (2014). Dissociable neural correlates of intention and action preparation in voluntary task switching. Cerebral Cortex, 24, 465–478.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Poljac, E., Haartsen, R., van der Cruijsen, R., Kiesel, A., & Poljac, E. (2018). Task intentions and their implementation into actions: cognitive control from adolescence to middle adulthood. Psychological Research, 82, 215–229.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, P. T. (1999). Sequential effects in auditory choice reaction time tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 297–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reissland, J., & Manzey, D. (2016). Serial or overlapping processing in multitasking as individual preference: Effects of stimulus preview on task switching and concurrent dual-task performance. Acta Psychologica, 168, 27–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richter, F. R., & Yeung, N. (2014). Neuroimaging studies of task switching. In J. A. Grange & G. Houghton (Eds.), Task switching and cognitive control (pp. 237–271). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, O., & Koch, I. (2006). Exogenous influences on task-set activation in task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1033–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, O., & Meiran, N. (2005). On the origins of the task mixing cost in the cuing task-switching paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1477–1491.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763–797.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ruge, H., Müller, S. C., & Braver, T. S. (2010). Anticipating the consequences of action: An fMRI study of intention-based task preparation. Psychophysiology, 47, 1019–1027.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schacherer, J., & Hazeltine, E. (2020). Cue the effects: Stimulus-action effect modality compatibility and dual-task costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46, 350–368.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scheil, J., & Kleinsorge, T. (2014). N− 2 repetition costs depend on preparation in trials n− 1 and n− 2. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 865–872.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. R., De Houwer, J., & Rothermund, K. (2016). The Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP) model 2.0: A single computational model of stimulus-response binding, contingency learning, power curves, and mixing costs. Cognitive Psychology, 91, 82–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. R., Liefooghe, B., & De Houwer, J. (2020). An episodic model of task switching effects: Erasing the homunculus from memory. Journal of Cognition, 3, 22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Modeling task switching without switching tasks: A short-term priming account of explicitly cued performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2006). Priming cue encoding by manipulating transition frequency in explicitly cued task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 145–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2015). Chunking away task-switch costs: A test of the chunk-point hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 884–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D.W. (2015). Attentional control of response selection in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 1315–1324.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schuch, S. & Koch, I. (2006). Task switching and action sequencing. Psychological Research, 70, 526–540.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 92–105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2004). The costs of changing the representation of action: Response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 566–582.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schuch, S., Dignath, D., Steinhauser, M., & Janczyk, M. (2019). Monitoring and control in multitasking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26, 222–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarb, H., & Schumacher, E. H. (2012). Generalized lessons about sequence learning from the study of the serial reaction time task. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 8, 165–178.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Seibold, J. C., Koch, I., Nolden, S., Proctor, R. W., Vu, K. P. L., & Schuch, S. (2019). Response repetitions in auditory task switching: The influence of spatial response distance and of the response-stimulus interval. Acta Psychologica, 199, 102875.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton, N. J., & Cooper, R. P. (2017). Task inhibition, conflict, and the n-2 repetition cost: A combined computational and empirical approach. Cognitive Psychology, 94, 1–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2013). The expected value of control: An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79, 217–240.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Shenhav, A., Musslick, S., Lieder, F., Kool, W., Griffiths, T. L., Cohen, J. D., & Botvinick, M. M. (2017). Toward a rational and mechanistic account of mental effort. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 40, 99–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, M. H., & Carlson, R. A. (2000). Effects of repetition and foreknowledge in task-set reconfiguration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1445–1460.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, M.-H., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Task preparation and task repetition: Two-component model of task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 764–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, A., & Biederman, I. (1976). Mental set and mental shift revisited. American Journal of Psychology, 89, 669–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, D. N., Josten, J., Friedgen, E., & Koch, I. (2021). Crossmodal effects in task switching: Modality compatibility with vocal and pedal responses. Journal of Cognition, 4, 9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2010). Central crosstalk in task switching: Evidence from manipulating input-output modality compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1075–1081.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2011). The role of input–output modality compatibility in task switching. Psychological Research, 75, 491–498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, D. N., & Koch, I. (2015). Tactile stimuli increase effects of modality compatibility in task switching. Experimental Psychology, 62, 276–284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, D. N., Koch, I., Hendler, J. & Huestegge, L. (2013). Task switching, modality compatibility, and the supramodal function of eye movements. Experimental Psychology, 60, 90–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stoet, G., O’Conner, D., Conner, M., & Laws, K. (2013). Are women better than men at multitasking? BMC Psychology, 1: 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strobach, T., & Karbach, J. (Eds.) (2021). Cognitive training – An overview of features and applications (2nd edition). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strobach, T., Wendt, M., Tomat, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., & Jacobsen, T. (2020). No evidence for the reduction of task competition and attentional adjustment during task-switching practice. Acta Psychologica, 204, 103036.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 89–103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Swainson, R., Martin, D., & Prosser, L. (2017). Task-switch costs subsequent to cue-only trials. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1453–1470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swainson, R., Prosser, L., Karavasilev, K., & Romanczuk, A. (2019). The effect of performing versus preparing a task on the subsequent switch cost. Psychological Research, 85, 364–383.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Szameitat, A. J., Hamaida, Y., Tulley, R. S., Saylik, R., & Otermans, P. C. J. (2015). “Women Are Better Than Men”–Public beliefs on gender differences and other aspects in multitasking. PLoS ONE, 10, e0140371.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Thomaschke, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2013). Temporal predictability facilitates action, not perception. Psychological Science, 24, 1335–1340.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomaschke, R., & Dreisbach, G. (2015). The time-event correlation effect is due to temporal expectancy, not to partial transition costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 196–218.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomaschke, R., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2011). Response specific temporal expectancy: Evidence from a variable foreperiod paradigm. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 2309–2322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomaschke, R., Kunchulia, M., & Dreisbach, G. (2015). Time-based event expectations employ relative, not absolute, representations of time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 890–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Loy, B., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. (2010). Cognitive control in cued task switching with transition cues: cue processing, task processing, and cue-task transition congruency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 1916–1935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandierendonck, A., Demanet, J., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2012). A chain-retrieval model for voluntary task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 65, 241–283.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., Szmalec, A., & Vandierendonck, A. (2005). Inhibiting responses when switching: Does it matter? Experimental Psychology, 52,125–130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Voyer, D., Voyer, S. D., & Saint-Aubin, J. (2017). Sex differences in visual-spatial working memory: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24, 307–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 361–413.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J. M., & Strayer, D. L. (2010). Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary multi-tasking ability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 479–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, M., & Kiesel, A. (2008). The impact of stimulus-specific practice and task instructions on response congruency effects between tasks. Psychological Research, 72, 425–432.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Westbrook, A., Kester, D., & Braver, T. S. (2013). What is the subjective cost of cognitive effort? Load, trait, and aging effects revealed by economic preference. PloS one, 8, e68210.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wirth, R., Koch, I., & Kunde, W. (2020). Localizing modality compatibility effects: Evidence from dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 46, 1527–1537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, N. (2010). Bottom-up influences on voluntary task switching: The elusive homunculus escapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 348–362.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: The role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.455

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

    Iring Koch

  2. Institute of Psychology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Andrea Kiesel

Authors
  1. Iring Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrea Kiesel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iring Koch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Psychology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Andrea Kiesel

  2. Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

    Leif Johannsen

  3. Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany

    Iring Koch

  4. Institute of Sport Science, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Gießen, Germany

    Hermann Müller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Koch, I., Kiesel, A. (2022). Task Switching: Cognitive Control in Sequential Multitasking. In: Kiesel, A., Johannsen, L., Koch, I., Müller, H. (eds) Handbook of Human Multitasking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04760-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation