Psychological Research

, Volume 79, Issue 3, pp 446–462 | Cite as

Competitor Rule Priming: Evidence for priming of task rules in task switching

  • Maayan Katzir
  • Bnaya Ori
  • Shulan Hsieh
  • Nachshon Meiran
Original Article


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.


Negative Priming Incongruent Trial Switch Trial Relevant Rule Task Rule 
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.



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).


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Astle, D. E., Jackson, G. M., & Swainson, R. (2012). Two measures of task-specific inhibition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65(2), 233–251.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barutchu, A., Becker, S. I., Carter, O., Hester, R., & Levy, N. L. (2013). The role of task-related learned representations in explaining asymmetries in task switching. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e61729. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061729.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Botvinick, M., Braver, T., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, J. W., Reynolds, J. R., & Braver, T. S. (2007). A computational model of fractionated conflict-control mechanisms in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 55(1), 37–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryck, R. L., & Mayr, U. (2008). Task selection cost asymmetry without task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15(1), 128–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Druey, M., & Hübner, R. (2007). The role of temporal cue–target overlap in backward inhibition under task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(4), 749–754.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (2009). Temporal cue–target overlap is not essential for backward inhibition in task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62(10), 2068–2079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hsieh, S., Chang, C–. C., & Meiran, N. (2012). Episodic retrieval and decaying inhibition in the competitor-rule suppression phenomenon. Acta Psychologica, 41(3), 316–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hsieh, S., & Liu, H. (2008). Electrophysiological correlates of task conflicts in task-switching. Brain Research, 1203, 116–125.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hübner, M., Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., & Kluwe, R. H. (2003). Backward inhibition as a means of sequential task-set control: evidence for reduction of task competition. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(2), 289–297.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Jarmasz, J., & Hollands, J. G. (2009). Confidence intervals in repeated-measures designs: The number of observations principle. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 124–138.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kiesel, A., Wendt, M., & Peters, A. (2007). Task switching: on the origin of response congruency effects. Psychological Research, 71(2), 117–125.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: a review. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17(1), 1–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 163–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: the role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(1), 4–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meiran, N., & Daichman, A. (2005). Advance task preparation reduces task error rate in the cueing-task paradigm. Memory and Cognition, 33, 1272–1288.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Meiran, N., Hsieh, S., & Chang, C. C. (2011). “Smart inhibition”: electrophysiological evidence for the suppression of conflict-generating task rules during task switching. Cognitive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 11(3), 292–308.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Meiran, N., Hsieh, S., & Dimov, E. (2010). Resolving task rule incongruence during task switching by competitor rule suppression. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 992–1002.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Meiran, N., & Kessler, Y. (2008). The task rule congruency effect in task switching reflects activated long term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(1), 137–157.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2006). Task inhibition and task repetition in task switching. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 18(4), 624–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pinhas, M., Tzelgov, J., & Ganor-Stern, D. (2012). Estimating linear effects in ANOVA designs: the easy way. Behavior Research Methods, 44(3), 788–794.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime [Computer software]. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2006). Response-based strengthening in task shifting: evidence from shift effects produced by errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 517–534.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 89–103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Tipper, S. P., Weaver, B., & Houghton, G. (1994). Behavioural goals determine inhibitory mechanisms of selective attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 809–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Wendt, M., & Kiesel, A. (2008). The impact of stimulus-specific practice and task instructions on response congruency effects between tasks. Psychological Research, 72(4), 425–432.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003a). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: the role of stimulus-attribute and response-set selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 455–469.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003b). The effects of recent practice on task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(5), 919–936.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maayan Katzir
    • 1
  • Bnaya Ori
    • 1
  • Shulan Hsieh
    • 2
  • Nachshon Meiran
    • 1
  1. 1.Ben Gurion University of the NegevBeer-ShevaIsrael
  2. 2.National Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan

Personalised recommendations