Skip to main content

“Optimal suppression” as a solution to the paradoxical cost of multitasking: examination of suppression specificity in task switching

Psychological Research volume 82, pages 24–39 (2018)Cite this article

Abstract

Switching between tasks necessitates maintaining tasks in high readiness, yet readiness creates paradoxical interference from these tasks when they are not currently required. “Optimal suppression”, which targets just the interfering information, provides a partial solution to this paradox. By examining the carryover of suppression of a competitor stimulus–response (S–R) set from Trial N − 1 to Trial N, Meiran, Hsieh  and colleagues (Meiran  et al., J Exp Psychol Learn mem cognit 36:992–1002, 2010; Cognit Affect Behav Neurosci 11:292–308, 2011, and Hsieh et al., Acta Psychol 141:316–321, 2012) found that only the competing stimulus–response (S–R) set of rules is suppressed. Specifically, they found that a competitor S–R set in Trial N − 1 incurs cost when it becomes the relevant set in Trial N [competitor becomes relevant (CbR)]. Extending this logic, we predicted performance benefit when the competitor S–R set in Trial N − 1 remains the competitor S–R set in Trial N [competitor remains competitor (CrC)]. Here, we examined the question of whether what is being suppressed when encountering a response conflict is the entire S–R set of rules (e.g., “IF pink PRESS right”, and “IF blue PRESS left”) or an even more specific representation, namely, the currently interfering S–R rule (e.g., just “IF blue PRESS left”). We show that both CbR and CrC interact with Response (i.e., left or right key), suggesting that the system can recognize the exact source of interference (the competing S–R rule), and inhibit only this source.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Notes

  1. It is important to note that we chose the term ‘carryover’ to communicate the fact that we do not commit ourselves to a decay position where the passage of time is critical. Alternatively, a task control representation is tagged in an episodic trace as one causing interferences, such that its subsequent retrieval would be impaired. According to this position, time per se is unimportant, and what is critical is the ease in which the tagged episode is retrieved. In fact, a temporal distinctiveness analysis (Horoufchin, Philipp, & Koch, 2011) favored episodic retrieval over decaying inhibition, by showing that the paradoxically maladaptive pervasiveness of suppression was increased with temporal distinctiveness between the previous and the current episode (see Hsieh et al. 2012). For that reason, we also use the term ‘suppression’, rather than ‘inhibition’, to indicate a cognitive control mechanism without committing to an inhibitory account.

  2. S–R sets and S–R rules form a hierarchical structure, such that S–R sets are an assembly of two S–R rules. Yet, only one S–R rule of each S–R set is present in a given trial. Therefore, if, on a given trial, an S–R rule elicits a response tendency that is incompatible with the relevant response, the S–R rule would be an interfering S–R rule, and, as a result from the hierarchical structure, the S–R set would be a competing S–R set.

  3. It is important to note that the compatibility of an S–R set is determined by the compatibility of the relevant and irrelevant S–R rules. Specifically, when the irrelevant S–R rule elicits a response that is incompatible with the response that is elicited by the relevant S–R rule, the irrelevant S–R rule is an interfering S–R rule and the S–R set to which the irrelevant S–R rule belongs is a competitor S–R set. However, when the S–R rule is not interfering, this S–R rule and this S–R set are both compatible.

  4. While Sudevan and Taylor, and many others, used paradigms with only two S–R sets, later works used paradigms with K (K = 3 or 4, usually) S–R sets, as we did here. In this case, the Congruency variable does not have only two levels (congruent, incongruent, with 0 or 1 competitor S–R sets), but, instead, is replaced by a variable representing the number of competitor S–R sets, ranging from zero (congruent) to K – 1. From here on, we use the terms “congruent/incongruent” to identify whether there were no competitor rules on a trial (i.e., a congruent trial), or one or more competitors (i.e., an incongruent trial).

  5. In the original work, and publication following it, Meiran et al. (2010) termed this effect "competitor rule suppression". To avoid confusion, we mention here that what Meiran et al. described as “competitor rule” is described here, using our terminology, as “competitor S–R set”. Thus, CbR should actually be termed “competitor S–R set suppression”. Moreover, in what comes next, we introduce another effect that results from set suppression. Therefore, we decided from hereon to give this phenomenon a more theoretically neutral term: CbR, which stands for competitor becomes relevant.

  6. Note that although on a given trial, if an S–R rule is interfering, the S–R set must also be competing. This is due to the fact that the S–R rule is a part of the S–R set, i.e., the hierarchical structure mentioned above. Thus, in two consecutive trials, when the competitor set from Trial N − 1 appears in Trial N (as either a relevant set in CbR or as a competitor in CrC), its competing aspect from Trial N − 1 (i.e., the interfering S–R rule in Trial N − 1) may not appear in Trial N.

  7. In Katzir, Ori, Eyal, & Meiran (2015), the research question focused on emotion effects, and therefore the exclusion criteria related to whether participants followed instructions in the emotion manipulation. Because the current investigation did not include emotion, we included also participants who were previously excluded. We, therefore, excluded only one participant from Experiment 1, who performed with 49% errors.

  8. In a model selection process, BF10 is calculated for all possible models composed out of the combinations between main effects and interactions of the independent variables. For example, in a Bayesian ANOVA that includes two independent variables A and B, there are five possible models: three models that include only main effects (1st: Only A; 2nd: Only B; 3rd: A + B), another model that also includes the interaction (4th: A + B + AB), and the null model. The analysis gives a BF10 for each model separately, and then we select the model with the best fit to the data (see Maxwell & Delaney, 2003, for an equivalent treatment of "standard" ANOVA). This selection is based on the QueryBF of the comparison between the models, namely the ratio between the BF10 of the best model and the next best model. Moreover, to establish the existence of a main effect, we use the BF10 of this effect. However, to establish the existence of an interaction, we use the best fitting model that includes the interaction and compare it to the best fitting model that includes all of the effects present in the former model excluding the interaction (Rouder, Morey, Speckman, & Province, 2012). Thus, a BFcomparison > 1 would indicate evidence favoring the interaction.

  9. The same applies to the CrC analysis, only there the CrC effect is present when comparing Fig. 4b-I to -III (i.e., S–R rule repetition comparison) and not when comparing Fig. 4b-II to b-IV (i.e., S–R rule switch comparison).

  10. We thank Pierre Jolicoeur for raising this possibility (personal communication, May 2017).

  11. Note that in their work about goal shielding, S–R set representations are referred to as task sets (TS), whereas S–R rule representations are referred to as S–R mappings (e.g., Dreisbach & Haider, 2009).

References

  • Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge : MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (1999). Task switching: Positive and negative priming of task-set. In G. W. Humphreys, J. Duncan, & A. M. Treisman (Eds.), Attention, space and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience (pp. 273–296). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Arbuthnott, K. D. (2008). Asymmetric switch cost and backward inhibition: Carryover activation and inhibition in switching between tasks of unequal difficulty. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 62, 91–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Astle, D. E., Jackson, G. M., & Swainson, R. (2012). Two measures of task-specific inhibition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 6, 233–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, e61729. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061729.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108, 624–652.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bryck, R. L., & Mayr, U. (2008). Task selection cost asymmetry without task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 128–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M.W., Braver, T.S., & Meiran, N. (2017). The task novelty paradox: Flexible control of inflexible neural pathways during rapid instructed task learning. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.02.009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., & Haider, H. (2006). Implicit task sets in task switching? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 1221–1233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G., Goschke, T., & Haider, H. (2007). The role of task-rules and stimulus–response mappings in the task switching paradigm. Psychological Research, 71, 383–392.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G., & Haider, H. (2008). That’s what task sets are for: Shielding against distraction. Psychological Research, 72, 355–361.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dreisbach, G., & Haider, H. (2009). How task representations guide attention: further evidence for the shielding function of task sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 477–486.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fagot, C. (1994). Chronometric investigations of task switching. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, San Diego.

  • 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 

  • Gratton, G., Coles, M. G., & Donchin, E. (1992). Optimizing the use of information: Strategic control of activation of responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121(4), 480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus–response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8, 494–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Horoufchin, H., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2011). Temporal distinctiveness and repetition benefits in task switching: Disentangling stimulus—related and response—related contributions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 434–446.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh, S., Chang, C. C., & Meiran, N. (2012). Episodic retrieval and decaying inhibition in the competitor-rule suppression phenomenon. Acta Psychologica, 141, 316–321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • JASP Team (2017). JASP (Version 0.7) (computer software)

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffreys, H. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzir, M., Ori, B., Eyal, T., & Meiran, N. (2015a). Go with the flow: How the consideration of joy versus pride influences automaticity. Acta Psychologica, 155, 57–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Katzir, M., Ori, B., Hsieh, S., & Meiran, N. (2015b). Competitor rule priming: Evidence for priming of task rules in task switching. Psychological Research, 79(3), 446–462.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Katzir, M., Ori, B., & Meiran, N. (2017). Relevant rule activation as a means to resolve conflicts during task switching. (unpublished manuscript).

  • Kerns, J. G., Cohen, J. D., MacDonald, A. W., III, Cho, R. Y., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2004). Anterior cingulate conflict monitoring and adjustments in control. Science, 303, 1023–1026.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kiesel, A., Wendt, M., & Peters, A. (2007). Task switching: On the origin of response congruency effects. Psychological Research, 71, 117–125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiman, T., Hassin, R. R., & Trope, Y. (2014). The control-freak mind: Stereotypical biases are eliminated following conflict-activated cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 498–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koechlin, E., & Summerfield, C. (2007). An information theoretical approach to prefrontal executive function. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(6), 229–235.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kunde, W., Kiesel, A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003). Conscious control over the content of unconscious cognition. Cognition, 88, 223–242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kunde, W., & Wühr, P. (2006). Sequential modulations of correspondence effects across spatial dimensions and tasks. Memory & Cognition, 34, 356–367.

    Article  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 

  • Masson, M. E. J., Bub, D. N., Woodward, T. S., & Chan, J. C. K. (2003). Modulation of word-reading processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 400–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, S.E., & Delaney, H.D. (2003). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective (Vol. 1). Psychology Press.

  • Mayr, U. (2001). Age differences in the selection of mental sets: the role of inhibition, stimulus ambiguity, and response-set overlap. Psychology and Aging, 16, 96–109.

    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. (2000). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234–249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (2005). Task rule-congruency and Simon-like effects in switching between spatial tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58(6), 1023–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N. (2010). Task switching: Mechanisms underlying rigid vs. flexible self control. In R. R. Hassin, K. N. Ochsner, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Self control in society, mind, and brain (pp. 202–220). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Meiran, N., Hsieh, S., & Chang, C. C. (2011). “Optimal inhibition”: Electrophysiological evidence for the suppression of conflict—generating task rules during task switching. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, 292–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 992–1002.

    Article  PubMed  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D. (1984). Resources—A theoretical soup stone? Psychological Review, 91(2), 216–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86(3), 214–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D., & Miller, J. (1987). Role of outcome conflict in dual-task interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13(3), 435–448.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Navon, D., & Miller, J. (2002). Queuing or sharing? A critical evaluation of the single-bottleneck notion. Cognitive Psychology, 44(3), 193–251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oberauer, K. (2001). Removing irrelevant information from working memory: a cognitive aging study with the modified Sternberg task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(4), 948–957.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oberauer, K., Souza, A. S., Druey, M. D., & Gade, M. (2013). Analogous mechanisms of selection and updating in declarative and procedural working memory: Experiments and a computational model. Cognitive Psychology, 66(2), 157–211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., & Johnston, J. C. (1989). Chronometric evidence for central postponement in temporally overlapping tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41(1), 19–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouder, J. N., Morey, R. D., Speckman, P. L., & Province, J. M. (2012). Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(5), 356–374.

    Article  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(6), 1477–1491.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime [Computer software]. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools.

    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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 517–534.

    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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tipper, S. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37(4), 571–590.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tipper, S. P., & Milliken, B. (1996). Distinguishing between inhibition-based and episodic retrieval-based accounts of negative priming. In A. F. Kramer, M. G. H. Coles, & G. D. Logan (Eds.), Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention (pp. 337–363). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, xxv.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tipper, S. P., Weaver, B., & Houghton, G. (1994). Behavioural goals determine inhibitory mechanisms of selective attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(4), 809–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tombu, M., & Jolicœur, P. (2003). A central capacity sharing model of dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 3–18.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van’t Wout, F., Lavric, A., & Monsell, S. (2015). Is it harder to switch among a larger set of tasks? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(2), 363–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 4(46), 361–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, T. S., Meier, B., Tipper, C., & Graf, P. (2003). Bivalency is costly: Bivalent stimuli elicit cautious responding. Experimental Psychology, 50(4), 233–238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yehene, E., & Meiran, N. (2007). Is there a general task switching ability? Acta Psychologica, 126(3), 169–195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yehene, E., Meiran, N., & Soroker, N. (2005). Task alternation cost without task alternation: Measuring intentionality. Neuropsychologia, 43(13), 1858–1869.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 455–469.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung, N., & Monsell, S. (2003b). The effects of recent practice on task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 919–936.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding: This study was funded by a research grant from the Bi-National USA–Israel Science Foundation (Grant number 2015-186) to Nachshon Meiran, Michael W. Cole, and Todd S. Braver. Additionally, part of the work on this paper was done while the first author was a post-doc in Wilhelm Hofmann’s group at the University of Cologne. This stay was funded by the Leo Spitzer research grant from the University of Cologne awarded to Wilhelm Hofmann.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Maayan Katzir

  2. Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-sheva, Israel

    Maayan Katzir, Bnaya Ori & Nachshon Meiran

Authors
  1. Maayan Katzir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bnaya Ori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nachshon Meiran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maayan Katzir.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Maayan Katzir declares that she has no conflict of interest. Bnaya Ori declares that he has no conflict of interest. Nachshon Meiran declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional 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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 134 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Katzir, M., Ori, B. & Meiran, N. “Optimal suppression” as a solution to the paradoxical cost of multitasking: examination of suppression specificity in task switching. Psychological Research 82, 24–39 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0930-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0930-2