We investigated the processes underlying performance during cued task switching with transition cues. To this end, transition cueing and explicit cueing were compared in a design controlling for sequential effects in the two preceding trials in order to further examine the contribution of cue processes, task processes, and cue–task transition congruency during transition cueing. The study confirmed that the task-switch cost in transition cueing is larger than the task-switch cost in explicit cueing and showed that this larger switch cost is mainly due to cue processing. We also successfully decomposed performance in transition cueing into cue processing, task processing, and cue–task transition congruency on both a theoretical (Experiment 1) and an empirical basis (Experiments 2–3). Our empirical dissociation also demonstrates that cue–task transition congruency affects performance during both cue processing and task processing. We discuss the importance of our findings in relation to the different theories on task switching.
AllportA.StylesE. A.HsiehS. L. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.).Attention and performance: Vol. XV. Conscious and unconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
AltmannE. M. (2006). Task switching is not cue switching.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review13, 61016–1022.
3.
AltmannE. M. (2007). Comparing switch costs: Alternating runs and explicit cuing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition33, 3475–483.
4.
ArringtonC. M.LoganG. D.SchneiderD. 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 Cognition33, 3484–502.
5.
BrownJ. W.ReynoldsJ. R.BraverT. S. (2007). A computational model of fractionated conflict-control mechanisms in task-switching.Cognitive Psychology55, 137–85.
6.
ForstmannB. U.BrassM.KochI. (2007). Methodological and empirical issues when dissociating cue-related from task-related processes in the explicit task-cuing procedure.Psychological Research–Psychologische Forschung71, 4393–400.
7.
ForstmannB. U.BrassM.KochI.von CramonD. Y. (2005). Internally generated and directly cued task sets: An investigation with fMRI.Neuropsychologia43, 6943–952.
8.
GadeM.KochI. (2005). Linking inhibition to activation in the control of task sequences.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review12, 3530–534.
9.
HommelB. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action.Trends in Cognitive Sciences8, 11494–500.
10.
HommelB. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding).Psychological Research–Psychologische Forschung73, 4512–526.
11.
JersildA. T. (1927). Mental set and shift.Archives of Psychology14, 5–81.
12.
KleinsorgeT. (2004). Hierarchical switching with two types of judgment and two stimulus dimensions.Experimental Psychology51, 2145–149.
13.
KleinsorgeT.HeuerH. (1999). Hierarchical switching in a multi-dimensional task space.Psychological Research–Psychologische Forschung62, 4300–312.
14.
KochI.AllportA. (2006). Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching.Memory & Cognition34, 2433–444.
15.
LoganG. D. (2003). Executive control of thought and action: In search of the wild homunculus.Current Directions in Psychological Science12, 245–48.
16.
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, 3575–599.
17.
LoganG. D.BundesenC. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cuing procedure.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review11, 5832–840.
18.
MayrU. (2006). What matters in the cued task-switching paradigm: Tasks or cues?.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review13, 5794–799.
19.
MayrU.KeeleS. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General129, 14–26.
20.
MayrU.KlieglR. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition26, 51124–1140.
21.
MayrU.KlieglR. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition29, 3362–372.
22.
MeiranN. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition22, 61423–1442.
23.
Meiran, N. (2000) Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance: Vol. XVIII. Control of cognitive processes. (pp. 377–399). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
24.
MonsellS. (2003). Task switching.Trends in Cognitive Sciences7, 3134–140.
25.
MonsellS.MizonG. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance32, 3493–516.
26.
RogersR. D.MonsellS. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General124, 2207–231.
27.
RushworthM. F. S.HadlandK. A.PausT.SipilaP. K. (2002). Role of the human medial frontal cortex in task switching: A combined fMRI and TMS study.Journal of Neurophysiology87, 52577–2592.
28.
RuthruffE.RemingtonR. W.JohnstonJ. C. (2001). Switching between simple cognitive tasks: The interaction of top-down and bottom-up factors.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance27, 61404–1419.
29.
SchneiderD. W.LoganG. D. (2006). Priming cue encoding by manipulating transition frequency in explicitly cued task switching.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review13, 1145–151.
30.
SchneiderD. W.LoganG. D. (2007). Task switching versus cue switching: Using transition cuing to disentangle sequential effects in task-switching performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition33, 2370–378.
31.
SchuchS.KochI. (2004). The costs of changing the representation of action: Response repetition and response–response compatibility in dual tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance30, 3566–582.
32.
SpectorA.BiedermannI. (1976). Mental set and mental shift revisited.American Journal of Psychology89, 4669–679.
33.
StevensM.LammertynJ.VerbruggenF.VandierendonckA. (2006). Tscope: A C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS Windows platform.Behavior Research Methods38, 2280–286.
34.
StoetG.HommelB. (1999). Action planning and the temporal binding of response codes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance25, 61625–1640.
35.
StoetG.HommelB. (2002). Interaction between feature binding in perception and action.Common Mechanisms in Perception and Action19, 538–552.
36.
SudevanP.TaylorD. A. (1987). The cueing and priming of cognitive operations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance13, 189–103.
37.
TornayF. J.MilanE. G. (2001). A more complete task-set reconfiguration in random than in predictable task switch.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology54A, 3785–803.
38.
VandierendonckA.ChristiaensE.LiefoogheB. (2008). On the representation of task information in task switching: Evidence from task and dimension switching.Memory & Cognition36, 71248–1261.
39.
WaszakF.HommelB.AllportA. (2003). Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus–task bindings in task-shift costs.Cognitive Psychology46, 4361–413.
WaszakF.HommelB.AllportA. (2005). Interaction of task readiness and automatic retrieval in task switching: Negative priming and competitor priming.Memory & Cognition33, 4595–610.
42.
WinerB. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. (2). New York: McGraw-Hill.
