Recent studies have shown that switch costs (i.e., slower responding on task-alternation trials than on task-repetition trials) are not observed when on the preceding trial a no-go signal instructed the participant to withhold the response to the target stimulus. This finding suggests that neither task set is inhibited on no-go trials, and that the origin of switch costs is located in the application of the task set to the target stimulus. However, these studies also showed that responding after a no-go trial is substantially slower than after a go trial. This suggests that both task sets are inhibited on no-go trials and that switch costs originate from the preparation of a task set. In two experiments we created conditions that revealed an absence of switch costs in conjunction with relatively fast responding after no-go trials. Together these findings confirm that switch costs originate from the application of the task set.
AllportA.StylesE. A.HsiehS. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks.Attention and Performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing. UmiltàC.MoscovitchM.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press421–452.
2.
AllportA.WylieG. R. (2000). Task switching, stimulus–response bindings, and negative priming.Attention & Performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes. MonsellS.DriverJ. S.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press35–70.
3.
AltmannE. M. (2004). Advance preparation in task switching: What work is being done?.Psychological Science15, 616–622.
4.
AltmannE. M.GrayW. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching.Psychological Review115, 602–639.
5.
ArbuthnottK. D. (1995). Inhibitory mechanisms in cognition: Phenomena and models.Current Psychology of Cognition14, 3–45.
6.
BeringerJ. (1992). Entwurf einer Anwendersprache zur Steuerung psychologischer Reaktionszeitexperimente [Design of an application language for conducting psychological reaction time experiments]Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Lang.
BrownJ. W.ReynoldsJ. R.BraverT. S. (2007). A computational model of fractionated conflict-control mechanisms in task-switching.Cognitive Psychology55, 37–85.
9.
De JongD. R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs.Attention and Performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes. MonsellS.DriverJ.Cambridge MA: MIT Press357–375.
10.
HoffmannJ.KieselA.SebaldA. (2003). Task switches under go/no go conditions and the decomposition of switch costs.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology15, 101–128.
11.
HommelB. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action.Trends in Cognitive Sciences8, 494–500.
12.
HübnerM.DreisbachG.HaiderH.KluweR. H. (2003). Backward inhibition as a means of sequential task-set control: Evidence for reduction of task competition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition29, 289–297.
13.
JersildA. T. (1927). Mental set and shift.Archives of Psychology14, Whole No. 895–82.
14.
JonidesJ.MackR. (1984). On the cost and benefit of cost and benefit.Psychological Bulletin96, 29–44.
15.
KleinsorgeT.GajewskiP. D. (2004). Preparation for a forthcoming task is sufficient to produce subsequent switch costs.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review11, 302–306.
16.
KochI.PhilippA. M. (2005). Effects of response selection on the task repetition benefit in task switching.Memory & Cognition33, 624–634.
17.
LienM.-C.RuthruffE.RemingtonR. W.JohnstonJ. C. (2005). On the limits of advance preparation for a task switch: Do people prepare all the task some of the time or some of the task all the time?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance31, 299–315.
18.
LoganG. D.BundesenC. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance29, 575–599.
19.
LosS. A. (1996). On the origin of mixing costs: Exploring information processing in pure and mixed blocks of trials.Acta Psychologica94, 145–188.
20.
LosS. A.KochI.RidderinkhofK. R. (2004). Task-set competition not task-set preparation causes switch costs: A comment on Kleinsorge and Gajewski (2004) Unpublished manuscript.
21.
MayrU.KeeleS. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General129, 4–26.
22.
MayrU.KlieglR. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition26, 1124–1140.
23.
MayrU.KlieglR. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition29, 362–372.
24.
MeiranN. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition22, 61–20.
25.
MeiranN. (2000). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching.Psychological Research63, 234–249.
26.
MeiranN.ChorevZ.SapirA. (2000). Component processes in task switching.Cognitive Psychology41, 211–253.
27.
MeiranN.KesslerY.Adi-JaphaE. (2008). Control by action representation and input selection (CARIS): A theoretical framework for task switching.Psychological Research72, 473–500.
28.
MonsellS. (1996). Control of mental processes.Unsolved mysteries of the mind. BruceV.Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates93–148.
29.
MonsellS. (2003). Task switching.Trends in Cognitive Sciences7, 134–140.
30.
NormanD. A.ShalliceT. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior.Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research and theory. SchwartzG. E.DavidsonR. J.ShapiroD.New York: Plenum4, 1–18.
31.
PashlerH.BaylisG. (1991). Procedural learning: 2. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded choice tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition17, 133–48.
32.
PhilippA. M.JolicoeurP.FalkensteinM.KochI. (2007). Response selection and response execution in task switching: Evidence from a go-signal paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition33, 1062–1075.
33.
RogersR. D.MonsellS. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General124, 2207–231.
34.
SchneiderD. W.LoganG. D. (2005). Modeling task switching without switching tasks: A short-term priming account of explicitly cued performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General134, 343–367.
35.
SchuchS.KochI. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance29, 92–105.
36.
SpectorA.BiedermanI. (1976). Mental set and mental shift revisited.American Journal of Psychology89, 669–679.
37.
SteinhauserM.HübnerR. (2006). Response-based strengthening in task shifting: Evidence from shift effects produced by errors.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance32, 517–534.
38.
SteinhauserM.HübnerR. (2008). How task errors affect subsequent behavior: Evidence from distributional analyses of task-switching effects.Memory & Cognition36, 979–990.
39.
SternbergS. (1969). The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders’ method.Acta Psychologica30, 276–315.
40.
SternbergS. (2001). Separate modifiability, mental modules, and the use of pure and composite measures to reveal them.Acta Psychologica106, 147–246.
41.
VerbruggenF.LiefoogheB.SzmalecA.VandierendonckA. (2005). Inhibiting responses when switching: Does it matter?.Experimental Psychology52, 125–130.
42.
VerbruggenF.LiefoogheB.VandierendonckA. (2006). Selective stopping in task switching: The role of response selection and response execution.Experimental Psychology53, 48–57.
43.
VerbruggenF.LiefoogheB.VandierendonckA.DemanetJ. (2007). Short cue presentations encourage advance preparation: A recipe to diminish the residual switch cost.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition33, 342–356.
44.
WaszakF.HommelB.AllportA. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs.Cognitive Psychology46, 361–413.
45.
WylieG. R.AllportA. (2000). Task switching and the measurement of “switch costs”.Psychological Research63, 212–233.
46.
WylieG. R.JavittD. C.FoxeJ. J. (2004). The role of responding requirements in task switching: Dissolving the residue.Neuroreport15, 1079–1087.
