Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 72, Issue 4, pp 355–361 | Cite as

That’s what task sets are for: shielding against irrelevant information

  • Gesine DreisbachEmail author
  • Hilde Haider
Original Article

Abstract

Goal-directed behavior requires the cognitive system to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information. The authors show that task sets help to shield the system from irrelevant information. Participants had to respond to eight different colored word stimuli under different instruction conditions. They either had to learn the stimulus–response mappings (SR condition), to use one task set (1 TS condition) or to use two different task sets (2 TS condition). In the 2 TS and the SR conditions, participants showed response repetition effects (interaction of color repetition × response repetition), indicating that participants processed the color of the words. Importantly, the 1 TS condition did not show such an interaction. Overall, the results provide evidence for the shielding function of task sets. This benefit turns into costs in classical task switching paradigms. From this perspective, switch costs can be interpreted as the consequence of successful shielding on the previous task.

Keywords

Switch Cost Task Switching Irrelevant Information Working Memory Load Task 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

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant to the first author from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG: DR 392–5/1).

References

  1. Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (2000). Task switching: Positive and negative priming of task-set. In G. W. Humphreys, J. Duncan, A. M. Treisman (Eds.), Attention, space and action: studies in cognitive neuroscience. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 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 (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  3. Ansorge, U., & Neumann, O. (2005). Intentions determine the effect of invisible metacontrast-masked primes: Evidence for top–down contingencies in a peripheral cueing task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 762–777.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Fockert, J. W., Rees, G., Frith, C. D., & Lavie, N. (2001). The role of working memory in visual selective attention. Science, 291, 1803–1806.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., & Haider H. (2006). Implicit task sets in task switching? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 32, 1221–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dreisbach, G., & Haider, H. (2006). Preparatory adjustment of cognitive control in the task switching paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 334–338.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hübner, R., & Druey, M. D. (2006). Response execution, selection, or activation: What is sufficient for response related repetition effects under task shifting? Psychological Research, 70, 245–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hübner, R., & Druey, M. D. (2007). Mulitple response codes play specific roles in response selection and inhibition under task switching. Psychological Research (in press).Google Scholar
  14. Kleinsorge, T. (1999). Response repetition benefits and costs. Acta Psychologica, 103, 295–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kleinsorge, T., & Heuer, H. (1999). Hierarchical switching in a multi-dimensional task space. Psychological Research, 62, 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subjects designs. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1, 476–490.Google Scholar
  17. Mayr, U., & Keele, S. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1, 4–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 362–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meiran, N. (2000a). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In: S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 331–355). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  20. 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: MIT.Google Scholar
  21. Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 134–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Notebaert, W., & Soetens, E. (2003). The influence of irrelevant stimulus changes on stimulus and response repetition effects. Acta Psychologica, 112, 143–156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pashler, H., & Baylis, G. (1991). Procedural learning: 1. Locus of practice effects in speeded choice tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17, 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). The cost of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Soetens, E. (1998). Localizing sequential effects in serial choice reaction time with the information reduction procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 547–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wenke, D., & Frensch, P. (2005). The influence of task instruction on action coding: constraint setting or direct coding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 803–819.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wylie, G., & Allport, A. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs”. Psychological Research, 63, 212–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Universität zu KölnKölnGermany
  3. 3.Institut für Psychologie ITechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations