Memory & Cognition

, Volume 37, Issue 7, pp 1040–1050 | Cite as

Verbal representation in task order control: An examination with transition and task cues in random task switching



Recent task-switching studies in which a predictable task sequence has been used have indicated that verbal representation contributes to the control of task order information. The present study focused on the role of verbal representation in sequential task decisions, which are an important part of task order control, and examined the effects of articulatory suppression in a random-task-cuing paradigm with two different types of cues presented just before the presentation of a stimulus: a transition cue and a task cue. The former cue provided information only about switching or repeating the task, whereas the latter was associated directly with the identity of the task (i.e., indicating a parity or a magnitude task). In Experiment 1, in which transition cues guided task sequences, articulatory suppression impaired performance in both repetition and switch trials, thereby increasing the mixing costs. In Experiment 2, in which a task cue, rather than a transition cue, was presented to examine the influence of a cue-decoding process, articulatory suppression had no specific effect on task performance. Experiment 3, in which the transition cue and the task cue were randomly presented in the same block to equalize the memory load and task strategy for the two types of cues, confirmed that articulatory suppression significantly increased the mixing costs only in transition cue trials. The results from the three experiments indicated that the use of verbal representation is effective in sequential task decision—that is, in selecting a task set on the basis of transient task order information in both repetition and switch trials.


  1. Allport, A., Styles, E. A., &Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.),Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  2. 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, 641–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bryck, R. L., &Mayr, U. (2005). On the role of verbalization during task set selection: Switching or serial order control?Memory & Cognition,33, 611–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dominey, P. F., Hoen, M., Blanc, J. M., &Lelekov-Boissard, T. (2003). Neurological basis of language and sequential cognition: Evidence from simulation, aphasia, and ERP studies.Brain & Language,86, 207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Emerson, M. J., &Miyake, A. (2003). The role of inner speech in task switching: A dual-task investigation.Journal of Memory & Language,48, 148–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forstmann, B. U., Brass, M., &Koch, I. (2007). Methodological and empirical issues when dissociating cue-related from task-related processes in the explicit task-cuing procedure.Psychological Research,71, 393–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Forstmann, B. U., Brass, M., Koch, I., &von Cramon, D. Y. (2005). Internally generated and directly cued task sets: An investigation with fMRI.Neuropsychologia,43, 943–952.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.),Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 331–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift.Archives of Psychology (Whole No. 89).Google Scholar
  10. Koch, I., Prinz, W., &Allport, A. (2005). Involuntary retrieval in alphabet-arithmetic tasks: Task-mixing and task-switching costs.Psychological Research,69, 252–261.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kray, J., &Lindenberger, U. (2000). Adult age differences in task switching.Psychology & Aging,15, 126–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Logan, G. D., &Bundesen, C. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 832–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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, & Cognition,32, 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Los, S. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials.Acta Psychologica,94, 145–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mayr, U. (2003). Towards principles of executive control: How mental sets are selected. In R. H. Kluwe, G. Luer, & F. Rosler (Eds.),Principles of learning and memory (pp. 223–240). Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  16. Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,22, 1423–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., &Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching.Cognitive Psychology,41, 211–253.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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, 123–142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 134–140.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Rogers, R. D., &Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,124, 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rushworth, M. F. S., Hadland, K. A., Paus, T., &Sipila, P. K. (2002). Role of the human medial frontal cortex in task switching: A combined fMRI and TMS study.Journal of Neurophysiology,87, 2577–2592.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Saeki, E., &Saito, S. (2004a). Effect of articulatory suppression on task-switching performance: Implications for models of working memory.Memory,12, 257–271.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Saeki, E., &Saito, S. (2004b). The role of the phonological loop in task switching performance: The effect of articulatory suppression in the alternating runs paradigm.Psychologia,47, 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saeki, E., Saito, S., &Kawaguchi, J. (2006). Effect of response-stimulus interval manipulation and articulatory suppression on task switching.Memory,14, 965–976.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Schneider, D. W., &Logan, G. D. (2007). Task switching versus cue switching: Using transition cuing to disentangle sequential effects in task-switching performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,33, 370–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cognitive Psychology in Education, Graduate School of EducationKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations