Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 82, Issue 1, pp 134–145 | Cite as

Shifting the set of stimulus selection when switching between tasks

  • Mike Wendt
  • Aquiles Luna-Rodriguez
  • Thomas Jacobsen
Original Article
  • 296 Downloads

Abstract

Switching between tasks associated with different requirements of stimulus selection may suffer interference from persisting attentional settings or processes of reconfiguration, possibly constituting a source of task switch costs (i.e., impaired performance in task switch trials compared to task repetition trials). To explore the processes involved in task switching with and without a switch in stimulus selection requirements, we administered a task-switching paradigm that involved task-unique sets of hierarchical (Navon) stimuli, preventing stimulus-related proactive interference (i.e., impaired responding to a stimulus that was previously processed in the context of a different task), and varied, between groups of participants, whether the target stimulus level (i.e., global vs. local) was held constant or varied between the tasks. Mixing target levels impaired performance overall and increased the task switch costs. Moreover, (within-task) global–local congruency effects were larger when target levels were mixed, particularly in task switch trials, suggesting relatively stronger stimulus processing according to the attentional set of the other task. In a second phase of the experimental session, the target level was changed persistently for either one or for both tasks, presumably evoking stimulus-related proactive interference. This change yielded large task switch costs and global–local congruency effects when it resulted in mixed target levels, but not when it resulted in a constant target level. These results are consistent with the notion that stimulus-related proactive interference is reduced by constant withdrawal of attention from the perceptual dimension of the interference-eliciting stimuli.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a Grant within the Priority Program SPP 1772 from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) to Thomas Jacobsen (JA 1009/13-1). The authors thank Ricarda Weil for help with the data collection.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Author A declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author B declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author C declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Conscious and nonconscious information processing: Attention and performance XV (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Driver, J. S., & Spence, C. J. (1994). Spatial synergies between auditory and visual attention. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 311–331). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fagot, C. (1994). Chronometric investigations of task switching, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. San Diego: University of California.Google Scholar
  5. Hillyard, S. A., & Anllo-Vento, L. (1998). Event-related brain potentials in the study of visual selective attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 95, 781–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hübner, R. (2000). Attention shifting between global and local target levels: The persistence of level-repetition effects. Visual Cognition, 7, 465–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hübner, R., Futterer, T., & Steinhauser, M. (2001). On attentional control as source of residual shift costs: Evidence from two-component task shifts. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 640–653.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hübner, M., Kluwe, R. H., Luna-Rodriguez, A., & Peters, A. (2004). Response selection difficulty and asymmetrical costs of switching between tasks and stimuli: No evidence for an exogenous component of task-set reconfiguration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 1043–1063.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Karayanidis, F., Jamadar, S., Ruge, H., Phillips, N., Heathcote, A., & Forstmann, B. U. (2010). Advance preparation in task-switching: Converging evidence from behavioral, brain activation, and model-based approaches. Frontiers in Psychology. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00025.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Karayanidis, F., Mansfield, E. L., Galloway, K. L., Smith, J. L., Provost, A., & Heathcote, A. (2009). Anticipatory reconfiguration elicited by fully and partially informative cues that validly predict a switch in task. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 202–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kiesel, A., Wendt, M., & Peters, A. (2007). Task Switching: On the origins of response congruency effects. Psychological Research, 71, 117–125.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Koch, I., Lawo, V., Fels, J., & Vorländer, M. (2011). Switching in the cocktail party—exploring intentional control of auditory selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1140–1147. doi: 10.1037/a0022189 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. LaBerge, D. (1983). Spatial extent of attention to letters and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 371–379.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lamb, M. R., Pond, H. M., & Zahir, G. (2000). Contributions of automatic and controlled processes to the analysis of hierarchical structure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 234–245.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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, 137–157.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Meiran, N., Kessler, Y., & Adi-Japha, E. (2008). Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): A theoretical framework for task switching. Psychological Research, 72, 473–500.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 353–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pashler, H. (1994). Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 220–244.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Robertson, L. C. (1996). Attentional persistence for features of hierarchical patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schmitz, F., & Voss, A. (2012). Decomposing task-switching costs with the diffusion model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 222–250.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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, 92–105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Spence, C., Ranson, J., & Driver, J. (2000). Crossmodal selective attention: Ignoring auditory stimuli presented at the focus of visual attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 62, 410–424.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Spence, C., & Read, L. (2003). Speech shadowing while driving: On the difficulty of splitting attention between eye and ear. Psychological Science, 14, 251–256.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vandierendonck, A., Christiaens, E., & Lifooghe, B. (2008). On the representation of task information in task switching: Evidence from task and dimension switching. Memory and Cognition, 36, 1248–1261.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ward, L. M. (1982). Determinants of attention to local and global features of visual forms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 562–581.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Waszak, F., Hommel, B., & Allport, D. A. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 361–413.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Wendt, M., Kähler, S. T., Luna-Rodriguez, A., & Jacobsen, T. (2017). Adoption of task-specific sets of visual attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 687.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Wendt, M., Luna-Rodriguez, A., Kiesel, A., & Jacobsen, T. (2013). Conflict adjustment devoid of perceptual selection. Acta Psychologica, 144, 31–39.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wylie, G., & Allport, D. A. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs”. Psychological Research, 63, 212–233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Yovel, G., Levy, J., & Yovel, I. (2001). Hemispheric asymmetries for global and local visual perception: Effects of stimulus and task factors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1369–1385.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical School HamburgHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Helmut Schmidt University/University of the Federal Armed Forces HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations