Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 70, Issue 4, pp 245–261 | Cite as

Response execution, selection, or activation: What is sufficient for response-related repetition effects under task shifting?

  • Ronald HübnerEmail author
  • Michel D. Druey
Original Article

Abstract

Repetition effects are often helpful in revealing information about mental structures and processes. Usually, positive effects have been observed when the stimuli or responses are repeated. However, in task shift studies it has also been found that response repetitions can produce negative effects if the task shifts. Although several mechanisms have been proposed to account for this interaction between task shifting and response repetition, many details remain open. Therefore, a series of four experiments was conducted to answer two questions. First, are motor responses necessary to produce response-related repetition effects, or is response activation sufficient? Second, does the risk of an accidental re-execution of the last response affect the repetition costs? The results show that response activation alone can produce repetition effects. Furthermore, the risk of accidental response re-execution largely modulates these effects.

Keywords

Stimulus Onset Asynchrony Repetition Effect Stimulus Category Task Repetition Response Repetition 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Thomas Kleinsorge, Nachshon Meiran, and Stefanie Schuch for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. This research was supported by a grant from the Universität Konstanz, Germany.

References

  1. Bertelson, P. (1963). S-R relationships and RT to new vs. repeated signals in a send task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 478–484.Google Scholar
  2. Bertelson, P. (1965). Serial choice reaction-time as a function of response versus signal-and-response repetition. Nature, 206, 217–218.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, K. C., & Proctor, R. W. (1993). Repetition effects with categorizable stimulus and response sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1345–1362.Google Scholar
  5. Duncan, J. (1979). Divided attention: The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 216–228.Google Scholar
  6. Hommel, B. (1998a). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1368–1384.Google Scholar
  7. Hommel, B. (1998b). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus-response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.Google Scholar
  8. 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, 849–878.Google Scholar
  9. Hübner, R., Futterer, T., & Steinhauser, M. (2001). On attentional control as source of residual shift costs: Evidence from two-component task shifts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 640–653.Google Scholar
  10. Kleinsorge, T. (1999). Response repetition benefits and costs. Acta Psychologica, 103, 295–310.Google Scholar
  11. Kleinsorge, T., & Gajewski, P. D. (2004). Preparation for a forthcoming task is sufficient to produce subsequent shift costs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 302–306.Google Scholar
  12. Kleinsorge, T., & Heuer, H. (1999). Hierarchical switching in a multi-dimensional task space. Psychological Research, 62, 300–312.Google Scholar
  13. Lien, M. C., Schweickert, R., & Proctor, R. W. (2003). Task switching and response correspondence in the psychological refractory period paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 692–712.Google Scholar
  14. Logan, G. D. (1985). On the ability to inhibit simple thoughts and actions. II. Stop-signal studies of repetition priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 11, 675–691.Google Scholar
  15. Logan, G. D. (1994). On the ability to inhibit thought and action. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 188–239). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Logan, G. D., & Burkell, J. (1986). Dependence and independence in responding to double stimulation: A comparison of stop, change, and dual-task paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 549–563.Google Scholar
  17. Logan, G. D., & Schulkind, M. D. (2000). Parallel memory retrieval in dual-task situations. I. Semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1072–1090.Google Scholar
  18. Meiran, N. (2000a). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234–249.Google Scholar
  19. Meiran, N. (2000b). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 377–399). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Meiran, N. (2005). Task rule congruency and Simon-like effects in switching between spatial tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 58A, 1023–1041.Google Scholar
  21. Meiran, N., & Gotler, A. (2001). Modelling cognitive control in task switching and ageing. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 13, 165–186.Google Scholar
  22. Pashler, H. (1984). Processing stages in overlapping tasks: Evidence for a central bottleneck. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 358–377.Google Scholar
  23. Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991). Procedural learning. II. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded-choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 33–48.Google Scholar
  24. Peeke, S. C., & Stone, G. C. (1972). Sequential effects in two- and four-choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 92, 111–116.Google Scholar
  25. Quinlan, P. T. (1999). Sequential effects in auditory choice reaction time tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 297–303.Google Scholar
  26. Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1968). Repetition effects and signal classification strategies in serial choice-response tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20A, 232–240.Google Scholar
  27. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, M. C. (1968). Repetition effect and short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 77, 435–439.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Welford, A. T. (1952). The ‘psychological refractory period’ and the timing of high-speed performance—a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 2–19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fachbereich PsychologieUniversität KonstanzKonstanzGermany

Personalised recommendations