Advertisement

The impact of cue format and cue transparency on task switching performance

  • Miriam GadeEmail author
  • Marco Steinhauser
Original Article
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

Cues help in retrieving and implementing task-sets, that are actual representations of the to-be performed task in working memory. However, whereas previous studies revealed that the effectiveness of selecting and implementing task-sets based on cues depends on the type of cue (i.e., transparent words vs. arbitrary shapes), it is still unclear which characteristics of cues are responsible for these differences and whether the impact of the cue is bound to task-set retrieval only or also impacts task-set representations. For instance, the amount of interference during actual task performance has been reported to alter dependent on cue type as do preparation gains such as the reduction of switch cost. To investigate the effectiveness of cue characteristics (i.e., cue transparency and cue format), we manipulated those within- and between-participants in three experiments. Main dependent measures were switch costs in reaction times and error rates that occur when participants have to switch task-sets, and thus update working memory content. Our results consistently show beneficial effects of transparent cues for the reduction of switch cost. The influence of cue format was manifest in within-participants manipulation only and was mainly found in error rates. Overall, our data suggest that the amount of interference experienced in actual task performance can be significantly modulated dependent on cue type, suggesting flexible adaptation of the cognitive system to contextual information.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research reported in this article was supported by a grant from the DFG (GA2105-2/1) to Miriam Gade. The authors would like to thank Sarah Schoch and Stefanie Ochsenkühn for their help in data collection. Raw data, trimmed data and analysis scripts can be found at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/mm4yc/?view_only=809d07010bf54d17bfcc027145083984.

Funding

This study was funded by a grant of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft to the first author (GA2105/2-1).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Both authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

426_2019_1150_MOESM1_ESM.docx (42 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 42 KB)

References

  1. Altmann, E. M. (2004). Advance preparation in task switching: What work is being done? Psychological Science, 15(9), 616–622.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00729.x.Google Scholar
  2. Altmann, E. M. (2007). Cue-independent task-specific representations in task switching: Evidence from backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(5), 892–899.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.5.892.Google Scholar
  3. Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Review, 115(3), 602–639.Google Scholar
  4. Arbuthnott, K. D. (2005). The influence of cue type on backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(5), 1030–1042.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.5.1030.Google Scholar
  5. Arrington, C. M., Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2007). Separating cue encoding from target processing in the explicit task-cuing procedure: Are there” true” task switch effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 484.Google Scholar
  6. Baddeley, A. D., Chincotta, D., & Adlam, A. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: Evidence from task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(4), 641–657.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.641.Google Scholar
  7. Beisert, M., Massen, C., & Prinz, W. (2010). Embodied rules in tool use: a tool-switching study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(2), 359–372.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016801.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2007). The representation of instructions in working memory leads to autonomous response activation: Evidence from the first trials in the flanker paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(8), 1140–1154.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210600896674.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen-Kdoshay, O., & Meiran, N. (2009). The representation of instructions operates like a prepared reflex: flanker compatibility effects found in first trial following S-R instructions. Experimental Psychology, 56(2), 128–133.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.2.128.Google Scholar
  10. Crump, M. J. C., & Logan, G. D. (2010). Contextual control over task-set retrieval. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72(8), 2047–2053.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196681.Google Scholar
  11. Druey, M. D., & Hübner, R. (2007). The role of temporal cue-target overlap in backward inhibition under task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(4), 749–754.Google Scholar
  12. Emerson, M. J., & Miyake, A. (2003). The role of inner speech in task switching: A dual-task investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 148–168.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00511-9 Google Scholar
  13. Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Cue-task associations in task switching. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(6), 762–769.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701268005.Google Scholar
  14. Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2008). Dissociating cue-related and task-related processes in task inhibition: evidence from using a 2:1 cue-to-task mapping. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology = Revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale, 62(1), 51–55.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1196-1961.62.1.51.Google Scholar
  15. Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2014). Cue type affects preparatory influences on task inhibition. Acta Psychologica, 148, 12–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.12.009.Google Scholar
  16. Gade, M., Schuch, S., Druey, M. D., & Koch, I. (2014). Inhibitory control in task switching. In J. A. Grange, & G. Houghton (Eds.), Executive Control and Task Switching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task-set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes (Vol 18, pp. 331–355). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (2010). Heightened conflict in cue-target translation increases backward inhibition in set switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36(4), 1003–1009.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019129.Google Scholar
  19. Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (Eds.) (2014). Task Switching and Cognitive Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gruber, O., & Goschke, T. (2004). Executive control emerging from dynamic interactions between brain systems mediating language, working memory and attentional processes. Acta Psychologica, 115(2–3), 105–121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.12.003.Google Scholar
  21. Hernández, M., Martin, C., Barcelo, F., & Costa, A. (2013). Where is the bilingual advantage in task-switching? Journal of Memory and Language, 69(3), 257–276.Google Scholar
  22. Hommel, B. (2000). The prepared reflex: Automaticity and control in stimulus-response translation. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes (pp. 247–273). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 73(4), 512–526.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-009-0234-2.Google Scholar
  24. Hommel, B., & Wiers, R. W. (2017). Towards a unitary approach to human action control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(12), 940–949.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.09.009.Google Scholar
  25. Jennings, J. R., & van der Molen, M. W. (2005). Preparation for speeded action as a psychophysiological concept. Psychological Bulletin, 131(3), 434.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.3.434.Google Scholar
  26. Jost, K., De Baene, W., Koch, I., & Brass, M. (2013). A review of the role of cue processing in task switching. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 221(1), 5–14.  https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000125.Google Scholar
  27. 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(5), 849–874.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019842.Google Scholar
  28. Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: a review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(1), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.1.1.Google Scholar
  29. Koch, I., Frings, C., & Schuch, S. (2018). Explaining response-repetition effects in task switching: evidence from switching cue modality suggests episodic binding and response inhibition. Psychological Research, 82(3), 570–579.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0847-9.Google Scholar
  30. Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., & Kiesel, A. (2018). Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—an integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), 557–583.  https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000144 Google Scholar
  31. Lavric, A., Mizon, G. A., & Monsell, S. (2008). Neurophysiological signature of effective anticipatory task-set control: A task-switching investigation. European Journal of Neuroscience, 28(5), 1016–1029.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06372.x.Google Scholar
  32. Leibovich, T., Ashkenazi, S., Rubinsten, O., & Henik, A. (2013). Comparative judgments of symbolic and non-symbolic stimuli yield different patterns of reaction times. Acta Psychologica, 144(2), 308–315.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.07.010.Google Scholar
  33. Liefooghe, B., Houwer, J. D., & Wenke, D. (2013). Instruction-based response activation depends on task preparation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(3), 481–487.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0374-7.Google Scholar
  34. Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(3), 575–599.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.3.575.Google Scholar
  35. Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108(2), 393–434.Google Scholar
  36. Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. W. (2006). Interpreting instructional cues in task switching procedures: The role of mediator retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(2), 347.Google Scholar
  37. Mayr, U. (2003). Towards principles of executive control: how mental sets are selected. In R.H. Kluwe, G. Lüer, & F. Rösler (Eds.), Principles of Learning and Memory (pp. 223–240).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-0348-8030-5_13. (Birkhäuser Basel).
  38. Mayr, U., & Bryck, R. L. (2007). Outsourcing control to the environment: effects of stimulus/response locations on task selection. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 71(1), 107–116.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-005-0039-x.Google Scholar
  39. Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(5), 1124–1140.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.5.1124.Google Scholar
  40. Mayr, U., Kleffner-Canucci, K., Kikumoto, A., & Redford, M. A. (2014). Control of task sequences: What is the role of language? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(2), 376–384.Google Scholar
  41. Meiran, N., Pereg, M., Kessler, Y., Cole, M. W., & Braver, T. S. (2015). The power of instructions: Proactive configuration of stimulus–response translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(3), 768–786.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000063.Google Scholar
  42. Miyake, A., Emerson, M. J., Padilla, F., & Ahn, J.-C. (2004). Inner speech as a retrieval aid for task goals: the effects of cue type and articulatory suppression in the random task cuing paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 115(2–3), 123–142.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.12.004.Google Scholar
  43. Monsell, S., & Mizon, G. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 493–516.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.493.Google Scholar
  44. Oberauer, K. (2009). Design for a working memory. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51, 45–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(09)51002-X.Google Scholar
  45. R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/. Accessed 1 Feb 2018.
  46. Rey-Mermet, A., & Gade, M. (2016). Contextual within-trial adaptation of cognitive control: Evidence from the combination of conflict tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42(10), 1505–1532.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000229.Google Scholar
  47. Rey-Mermet, A., Gade, M., & Oberauer, K. (2017). Stop thinking about inhibition - Searching for individual and age differences in inhibition as explanatory psychometric construct. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 44, 501–526.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000450.Google Scholar
  48. Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207.Google Scholar
  49. Ruge, H., & Wolfensteller, U. (2010). Rapid formation of pragmatic rule representations in the human brain during instruction-based learning. Cerebral Cortex, 20(7), 1656–1667.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhp228.Google Scholar
  50. Schneider, D. W. (2016). Investigating a method for reducing residual switch costs in cued task switching. Memory & Cognition, 44(5), 762–777.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0590-2.Google Scholar
  51. Seibold, J. C., Nolden, S., Oberem, J., Fels, J., & Koch, I. (2017). Intentional preparation of auditory attention-switches: explicit Cueing and sequential switch-predictability. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 0(ja), 1–45.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2017.1344867.Google Scholar
  52. Singmann, H., Bolker, B., & Westfall, J. (2015). afex: Analysis of factorial experiments. R package version 0.13–145.Google Scholar
  53. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 174–215.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174.Google Scholar
  54. Steinhauser, M., & Gade, M. (2015). Distractor onset but not preparation time affects the frequency of task confusions in task switching. Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01671.Google Scholar
  55. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.32.3.517.Google Scholar
  56. Stevens, M., Lammertyn, J., Verbruggen, F., & Vandierendonck, A. (2006). Tscope: A C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS Windows platform. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 280–286.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192779.Google Scholar
  57. Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(1), 89–103.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.13.1.89.Google Scholar
  58. Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 601–626.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019791.Google Scholar
  59. Verbruggen, F., Liefooghe, B., Vandierendonck, A., & Demanet, J. (2007). Short cue presentations encourage advance task preparation: a recipe to diminish the residual switch cost. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(2), 342–356.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.342.Google Scholar
  60. Waszak, F., Wenke, D., & Brass, M. (2008). Cross-talk of instructed and applied arbitrary visuomotor mappings. Acta Psychologica, 127(1), 30–35.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.12.005.Google Scholar
  61. Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design (3rd edn.). London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  62. Wolfensteller, U., & Ruge, H. (2012). Frontostriatal mechanisms in instruction-based learning as a hallmark of flexible goal-directed behavior. Frontiers in Psychology.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00192.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCatholic University of Eichstätt-IngolstadtEichstättGermany
  2. 2.Faculty of SciencesMedical School BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations