Psychological Research

, Volume 71, Issue 2, pp 117–125 | Cite as

Task switching: on the origin of response congruency effects

  • Andrea KieselEmail author
  • Mike Wendt
  • Alexandra Peters
Original Article


When people frequently alternate between simple cognitive tasks, performance on stimuli which are assigned the same response in both tasks is typically faster and more accurate than on stimuli which require different responses for both tasks, thus indicating stimulus processing according to the stimulus–response (S–R) rules of the currently irrelevant task. It is currently under debate whether such response congruency effects are mediated by the activation of an abstract representation of the irrelevant task in working memory or by “direct” associations between specific stimuli and responses. We contrasted these views by manipulating concurrent memory load (Experiment 1) and the frequency of specific S–R associations (Experiment 2). While between-task response congruency effects were not affected by the amount of concurrent memory load, they were much stronger for stimuli that were processed frequently in the context of a competitor task. These findings are consistent with the idea that a large portion of the congruency effects stems from direct S–R associations and they do not support a sole mediation by task-set activation in working memory.


Congruency Effect Task Switch Work Memory Load Probe Task Task Context 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was funded through Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Grant HO 1301/8-2 awarded to Joachim Hoffmann and Grant KL 488/5-2 to Rainer H. Kluwe.


  1. Allport, D.A., Styles, E.A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In: C. Umilta, & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and Performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing. (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Fagot, C. (1994). Chronometric investigations of task switching. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
  3. Gopher, D., Armony, L., & Greenshpan, Y. (2000). Switching tasks and attention policies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 308–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 (Vol XVIII). (pp. 331–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hommel, B. (2000). The prepared reflex. In: S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance (Vol XVIII). (pp. 247–273). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hommel, B., & Eglau, B. (2002). Control of stimulus–response translation in dual-task performance. Psychological Research, 66, 260–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hübner, M., Kluwe, R.H., Luna-Rodriguez, A., & Peters, A. (2004). Task preparation and stimulus-evoked competition. Acta Psychologica, 115, 211–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition. Cognition, 88, 223–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mayr, U., & Keele, S.W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1124–1140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meiran, N. (2000). Modeling cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234–249.Google Scholar
  14. Pashler, H., Johnston, J.C., & Ruthruff, E. (2001). Attention and performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 629–651.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reynvoet, B., Caessens, B., & Brysbaert, M. (2002). Automatic stimulus–response associations may be semantically mediated. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 107–112.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Rogers, R., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-prime user’s guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D.A. (1987). The cueing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 89–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic S–R bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 361–413.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2004). Semantic generalization of stimulus-task bindings. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 1027–1033.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Psychologie IIIJulius-Maximilians Universität WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  2. 2.Helmut-Schmidt-Universität, Universität der Bundeswehr HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations