Psychological Research

, Volume 76, Issue 1, pp 50–59 | Cite as

The bivalency effect: adjustment of cognitive control without response set priming

Original Article

Abstract

The occasional occurrence of bivalent stimuli, that is, stimuli with features relevant to two tasks, slows performance on subsequent tasks with univalent stimuli, including those which have no common features with bivalent stimuli (i.e., the “bivalency effect”). We have suggested that the bivalency effect might stem from an episodic context binding arising from the occasional occurrence of bivalent stimuli. However, as the same response set is used usually for univalent and bivalent stimuli, bivalent stimulus features may be negatively primed via response features. We investigated this possibility in two experiments, in which one group of participants used the same response keys for all tasks and another group used separate response keys. The results showed a comparable bivalency effect in both groups. Thus, it rather results from episodic context binding than from response set priming.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant from the Janggen-Pöhn Foundation to A. Rey-Mermet and by a grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant 130104) to B. Meier. We thank Martina Godosev, Cornelia Häfliger, Sara Mössinger, Isabelle Lüdhi, and Jona Hermann for testing the participants, as well as Brigitte Weiermann, Nicolas Rothen and Josephine Cock for helpful comments on an earlier version.

References

  1. Allport, 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 non-conscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (1999). 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 (pp. 273–296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (2000). Task switching, stimulus-response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 35–70). Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  4. Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychol Rev, 108, 624–652.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braverman, A., & Meiran, N. (2010). Task conflict in task switching. Psychol Res, 74, 568–578.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vis Res, 36, 1827–1837.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Druey, M. D., & Hübner, R. (2008). Effects of stimulus features and instruction on response coding, selection, and inhibition: evidence from repetition effects under task switching. Q J Exp Psychol, 61, 1573–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Egner, T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci, 7, 380–390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fagioli, S., Hommel, B., & Schubotz, R. I. (2007). Intentional control of attention: Action planning primes action-related stimulus dimensions. Psychol Res, 71, 22–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fagot, C. (1994). Chronometric investigations of task switching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, San Diego: University of California.Google Scholar
  11. Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends Cogn Sci, 8, 494–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behav Brain Sci, 24, 849–937.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hübner, R., & Druey, M. D. (2008). Multiple response codes play specific roles in response selection and inhibition under task switching. Psychol Res, 72, 415–424.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Arch Psychol, 89, 5–82.Google Scholar
  15. Kunde, W., & Kiesel, A. (2006). See what you’ve done! Active touch affects the number of perceived visual objects. Psychon Bull Rev, 13, 304–309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mayr, U., Awh, E., & Laurey, P. (2003). Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nat Neurosci, 6, 450–452.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Meier, B., Woodward, T. S., Rey-Mermet, A., & Graf, P. (2009). The bivalency effect in task switching: General and enduring. Can J Exp Psychol, 63, 201–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meiran, N. (2008). The dual implication of dual affordance: Stimulus-task binding and attentional focus of changing during task preparation. Exp Psychol, 55, 251–259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meiran, N., Kessler, Y., & Adi-Japha, E. (2008). Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): A theoretical framework for task switching. Psychol Res, 72, 473–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Metzker, M., & Dreisbach, G. (2009). Bidirectional priming processes in the Simon task. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 35, 1770–1783.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Monsell, S., Yeung, N., & Azuma, R. (2000). Reconfiguration of task-set: Is it easier to switch to the weaker task? Psychol Res, 63, 250–264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Paprotta, I., Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. X. (1999). Object recognition and goal-directed eye or hand movements are coupled by visual attention. In W. Becker, H. Deubel, & T. Mergner (Eds.), Current oculomotor research: physiological and psychological aspects (pp. 241–248). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  23. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. J Exp Psychol Gen, 124, 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 27, 763–797.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sohn, M.-H., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Task preparation and task repetition: Two-component model of task switching. J Exp Psychol Gen, 130, 764–778.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2009). Distinguishing response conflict and task conflict in the Stroop task: Evidence from ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 35, 1398–1412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cogn Psychol, 46, 361–413.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Waszak, F., & Pholulamdeth, V. (2009). Episodic S–R bindings and emotion: About the influence of positive and negative effects on stimulus-response associations. Exp Brain Res, 194, 489–494.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Woodward, T. S., Meier, B., Tipper, C., & Graf, P. (2003). Bivalency is costly: Bivalent stimuli elicit cautious responding. Exp Psychol, 50, 233–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Woodward, T. S., Metzak, P. D., Meier, B., & Holroyd, C. B. (2008). Anterior cingulate cortex signals the requirement to break inertia when switching tasks: A study of the bivalency effect. Neuroimage, 40, 1311–1318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wylie, G., & Allport, A. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs”. Psychol Res, 63, 212–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of BernBern 9Switzerland

Personalised recommendations