Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): a theoretical framework for task switching
- 310 Downloads
Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS) is a modeling framework for task-switching experiments, which considers action-related effects as critical constraints. It assumes that control operates by choosing control parameter values, representing input selection and action representation. Competing CARIS models differ in whether (a) control parameters are determined by current instructions or represent a perseveration, (b) current instructions apply to the input selection and/or to action representation. According to the chosen model (a) task execution results in a default bias in favor of the executed task thus creating perseverative tendencies; (b) control counteracts these tendencies by applying a transient momentary bias whose locus (input selection or action representation) changes as a function of task preparation time; (c) this happens because the task-cue (e.g., SHAPE) initially attracts attention to the immediately available cue-information (e.g., target shape) and then attracts it to inferred or retrieved information (e.g., “circle” is related to the right key press).
KeywordsSwitch Cost Action Representation Congruency Effect Incongruent Trial Task Switching
The research was supported by a grant to the first author from the Israel Science Foundation. We thank Thomas Goschke, Thomas Kleinsorge, Erik Altmann, Iring Koch and an anonymous reviewer for their insightful and challenging comments, and Rotem Eren-Rabinovich for English proofreading.
- Ach, N. (2006). On volition (T. Herz, Trans.). (Original work published 1910) Retrieved from University of Konstanz, Cognitive Psychology Web site: http://www.uni-konstanz.de/kogpsych/ach.htm.
- Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In: C. Umiltà, & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and Performance XV: Conscious and Unconscious Processing (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.), Attention and Performance XVIII: Control of Cognitive Processes (pp. 35–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Altmann, E. M. (2006). Task switching is not cue switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 1016–1022.Google Scholar
- De Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In: S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVIII: Control of Cognitive Processes (pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Fagot, C. (1994). Chronometric investigations of task switching. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
- Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007b). The influence of overlapping response sets on task inhibition. Memory & Cognition, 35, 603–609.Google Scholar
- Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task-set switching. In: S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVIII: Control of Cognitive Processes (pp. 331–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Koch, I. (2005). Sequential task predictability in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 107–112.Google Scholar
- Koch, I., & Allport, A. (2006). Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching. Memory & Cognition, 34, 433-444.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.Google Scholar
- Loehlin, J. C. (1987). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Luria, R., & Meiran, N. (2006). Dual route for subtask order control: Evidence from the Psychological Refractory Period paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 59, 720–744.Google Scholar
- Meiran, N. (2000b). The reconfiguration of the stimulus task-set and the response task set during task switching. In: S. Monsell, & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVIII: Control of Cognitive Processes (pp. 377–400). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Meiran, N. (2005). Task rule congruency and Simon-like effects in switching between spatial tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Section A, 58A, 1023–1041.Google Scholar
- Meiran, N. (2008a). Task switching: Mechanisms underlying rigid vs. flexible self control. In: R. Hassin, K. Ochsner, & Y. Trope (Eds.) Social Cognition and Social Neuroscience, NY: Oxford University Press (in press).Google Scholar
- Meiran, N. (2008b). The dual implication of dual affordance: Stimulus-task binding and attentional focus changing during task preparation. Experimental Psychology. doi: 10.1027/1618-3188.8.131.52.
- Meiran, N., & Daichman, A. (2005). Advance task preparation reduces task error rate in the cueing task-switching paradigm. Memory and Cognition, 33, 1272–1288.Google Scholar
- Meiran, N., Gotler, A., & Perlman, A. (2001). Old age is associated with a pattern of relatively intact and relatively impaired task-set switching abilities. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 56B, 88–102.Google Scholar
- Meiran, N., & Marciano, H. (2002). Limitations in advance task preparation: Switching the relevant stimulus dimension in speeded same-different comparisons. Memory & Cognition, 30, 540–550.Google Scholar
- Milner, B. (1964). Some effects of frontal lobectomy in man. In: J. M. Warren, & K. Akert (Eds.), The Frontal Granular Cortex and Behavior (pp. 313–334). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Monsell, S., Sumner, P., & Waters, H. (2003). Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches. Memory and Cognition, 31, 327–342.Google Scholar
- Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In: R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.) Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
- Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2005). Switching of response modalities. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1325–1338.Google Scholar
- Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
- Quinlan, P. T., & Hill, N. I. (1999). Sequential effects in rudimentary auditory and visual tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 375–384.Google Scholar
- Sosna, G. (2001). Practice and transfer in task-switching: The effect of quantity and frequency of switching. Unpublished MA Thesis, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva.Google Scholar
- Yehene, E. & Meiran, N., & Soroker, N. (2008). Basal ganglia play a unique role in task switching within the frontal-sub-cortical circuits: Evidence from patients with focal lesions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20077.
- Zelazo, P. D., & Frye, D. (1997). Cognitive complexity and control: A theory of the development of deliberate reasoning and intentional action. In: M. Stamenov (Ed.), Language structure, discourse, and the access to consciousness (pp. 113–153). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar