Proactive control of irrelevant task rules during cued task switching
- 532 Downloads
In task-switching paradigms, participants are often slower on incongruent than congruent trials, a pattern known as the task-rule congruency effect. This effect suggests that irrelevant task rules or associated responses may be retrieved automatically in spite of task cues. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether the task-rule congruency effect may be modulated via manipulations intended to induce variation in proactive control. Manipulating the proportion of congruent to incongruent trials strongly influenced the magnitude of the task-rule congruency effect. The effect was significantly reduced in a mostly incongruent list relative to a mostly congruent list, a pattern that was observed for not only biased but also 50 % congruent items. This finding implicates a role for global attentional control processes in the task-rule congruency effect. In contrast, enhancing the preparation of relevant (cued) task rules by the provision of a monetary incentive substantially reduced mixing costs but did not affect the task-rule congruency effect. These patterns support the view that there may be multiple routes by which proactive control can influence task-switching performance; however, only select routes appear to influence the automatic retrieval of irrelevant task rules.
KeywordsIncongruent Trial Irrelevant Dimension Switch Trial Task Rule Proactive Control
This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (R37 MH066078). The authors are grateful to Bridgette Shamleffer, Marie Krug, Kevin Oksanen, and Jason Li for assistance with data collection and programming.
- Allport, D. A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Switching intentional set: exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance, XV (pp. 421–452). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Askren, M. K. A. (2010). You can’t have it both ways: An examination of congruency effects in task switching. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
- Braver, T. S., Gray, J. R., & Burgess, G. C. (2007). Explaining the many varieties of working memory variation: dual mechanisms of cognitive control. In A. R. A. Conway, C. Jarrold, M. J. Kane, A. Miyake, & J. N. Towse (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 76–106). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bugg, J. M., Diede, N. T., Cohen-Shikora, E. R., & Szelmecy, D. (2015). Expectations and experience: dissociable bases for cognitive control? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000106.
- De Jong, R. (2000). An intention–activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Fagot, C. (1994). Chronometric investigations of task switching. Unpublished Dissertation, University of California-San Diego, San Diego, CA.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: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and switch. Archives of Psychology, Whole No. 89.Google Scholar
- Rubin, O., & Meiran, N. (2005). On the origins of the task mixing cost in the cuing task-switching paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 1477–1491.Google Scholar
- Schneider, D. W. (2014). Isolating a mediated route for response congruency effects in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000049.
- Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Modeling task switching without switching tasks: a short-term priming account of explicitly cued performance. Psychology: General, 134, 343––367.Google Scholar