Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Task conflict effect in task switching

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A part of action preparation is deciding what the relevant task is. This task-decision process is conceptually separate from response selection. To show this, the authors manipulated task conflict in a spatial task-switching paradigm, using conflict stimuli that appeared during trials with univalent targets (affording 1 task). The conflict stimuli afforded task identity because they were used as task cues with bivalent targets (affording 2 tasks) that were intermixed with the univalent targets. Thus, for univalent targets, irrelevant stimuli either caused low task conflict or high task conflict. In three experiments, the authors found poorer performance in high task conflict trials than in low task conflict trials. Task conflict was introduced during target appearance (Experiment 1) or task preparation (Experiments 2 and 3). In the latter case, the task conflict effect decreased with increasing task preparation time showing that task preparation involves task decision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. Attention and Performance, 15, 421–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Review, 115, 602–639.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Biederman, I. (1972). Human performance in contingent information processing tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 219–238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brass, M., & von Cramon, D. (2004). Selection for cognitive control: A functional magnetic resonance imaging study on the selection of task-relevant information. Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 8847.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., & Kluwe, R. H. (2002). Preparatory processes in the task-switching paradigm: Evidence from the use of probability cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 468–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Cue–task associations in task switching. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 762–769.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S., & Shallice, T. (2002). Task switching: A PDP model. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 297–337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb, L., & Henik, A. (2007). Evidence for task conflict in the Stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1170–1176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gotler, A., Meiran, N., & Tzelgov, J. (2003). Nonintentional task set activation: Evidence from implicit task sequence learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 890–896.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggard, P. (2008). Human volition: towards a neuroscience of will. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 934–946.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heuer, H., Schmidtke, V., & Kleinsorge, T. (2001). Implicit learning of sequences of tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 967–983.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, Whole No. 89.

  • Koch, I. (2001). Automatic and intentional activation of task-sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1474–1486.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility––A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423–1442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (2000). Reconfiguration of stimulus task-sets and response task-sets during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 377–400). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (2008). The dual implication of dual affordance: Stimulus-task binding and attentional focus changing during task preparation. Experimental Psychology, 55, 251–259.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (2010). Task switching: Mechanisms underlying rigid vs. flexible self control. In R. Hassin, K. Ochsner, & Y. Trope (Eds.) Social cognition and social neuroscience. NY: Oxford University Press (in press).

  • Meiran, N., & Daichman, A. (2005). Advance task preparation reduces task error rate in the cuing task-switching paradigm. Memory & Cognition, 33, 1272–1288.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Monsell, S., Taylor, T., & Murphy, K. (2001). Naming the color of a word: Is it responses or task sets that compete? Memory & Cognition, 29, 137–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. Davidson, G. Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self regulation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 4, pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum.

  • Rubin, O., & Koch, I. (2006). Exogenous influences on task set activation in task switching. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1033–1046.

    Article  PubMed  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, and Cognition, 31, 1477–1491.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763–797.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ruthruff, E., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (2001). Switching between simple cognitive tasks: The interaction of top-down and bottom-up factors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 1404–1419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Modeling task switching without switching tasks: A short-term priming account of explicitly cued performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 343–367.

    Article  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, 92–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, M. H., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Task preparation and task repetition: Two-component model of task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 764–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, M. H., & Carlson, R. (2000). Effects of repetition and foreknowledge in task-set reconfiguration. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1445–1460.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spector, A., & Biederman, I. (1976). Mental set and mental shift revisited. American Journal of Psychology, 89, 669–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinhauser, M., & Hübner, R. (2009). Distinguishing response conflict and task conflict in the Stroop task: Evidence from ex-Gaussian distribution analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1398–1412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sudevan, P., & Taylor, D. A. (1987). The cuing and priming of cognitive operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 89–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the reviewers, the action editor and Iring Koch for valuable comments on this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 84105, Beer-Sheva, Israel

    Ami Braverman & Nachshon Meiran

Authors
  1. Ami Braverman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nachshon Meiran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ami Braverman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Braverman, A., Meiran, N. Task conflict effect in task switching. Psychological Research 74, 568–578 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-010-0279-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-010-0279-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation