Competitor Rule Priming: Evidence for priming of task rules in task switching
In task-switching experiments, participants switch between task rules, and each task rule describes how responses are mapped to stimulus information. Importantly, task rules do not pertain to any specific response but to all possible responses. This work examined the hypothesis that task rules, as wholes, rather than (just) specific responses are primed by their execution, such that, in the following trial, response conflicts are exacerbated when the competing responses are generated by these recently primed rules, and performance becomes relatively poor. This hypothesis was supported in two task-switching experiments and re-analyses of additional three published experiments, thus indicating Competitor Rule Priming. Importantly, the Competitor Rule-Priming effect was independent of response repetition vs. switch, suggesting that it reflects the priming of the entire task rule rather than the priming (or suppression) of specific responses. Moreover, this effect was obtained regardless of Backward Inhibition, suggesting these effects are unrelated.
KeywordsNegative Priming Incongruent Trial Switch Trial Relevant Rule Task Rule
The research was supported by a Bi-National Taiwan–Israel research grant to Shulan Hsieh and Nachshon Meiran, by a research grant from the Israel Science Foundation to Nachshon Meiran and by a research grant from the Israeli Foundation Trustees to Maayan Katzir (Fund for Doctoral Students No. 30).
- 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 nonconsciousinformation processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Allport, D. 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 Press.Google Scholar
- Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 331–378). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime [Computer software]. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus–task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive psychology, 46, 361–413.Google Scholar