There is abundant evidence that there is a performance cost associated with switching between tasks. This “switch cost” has been postulated to be driven by task performance on the preceding trial, but recent research challenges any necessary role of previous task performance in driving the cost. Across three experiments, we investigated whether it is difficult to switch from a task that was prepared but never performed. We replicated the finding of a switch cost following cue-only trials (involving no task performance) whilst controlling for a potential cue-switching confound. This cost was larger than that following completed trials when preparation interval was short (300 ms), and it reduced significantly with a longer preparation interval (1000 ms) on the current trial. We also found that preparing only to attend to a particular visual dimension (colour or shape) was sufficient to drive a significant subsequent switch cost, which appeared to be residual in nature; we speculate that this cost may reflect the persistence of unfulfilled task intentions and/or a strategic slowing when consecutive intentions conflict.
AltmannE. M. (2002). Functional decay of memory for tasks. Psychological Research, 66, 287–297. doi:10.1007/s00426-002-0102-9
2.
AltmannE. M. (2004). The preparation effect in task switching: Carryover of SOA. Memory and Cognition, 32(1), 153–163.
3.
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 Cognition, 33(3), 484–502. doi:2007-06096-003
4.
AstleD. E., JacksonG. M., & SwainsonR. (2006). Dissociating neural indices of dynamic cognitive control in advance task-set preparation: An ERP study of task switching. Brain Research, 1125, 94–103. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.09.092
5.
BrassM., & von CramonD. Y. (2004). Decomposing components of task preparation with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(4), 609–620. doi:10.1162/089892904323057335
6.
BrownJ. W., ReynoldsJ. R., & BraverT. S. (2007). A computational model of fractionated conflict-control mechanisms in task-switching. Cognitive Psychology, 55(1), 37–85. doi:S0010-0285(06)00072-7
7.
BuggJ. M., & ScullinM. K. (2013). Controlling intentions: The surprising ease of stopping after going relative to stopping after never having gone. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2463–2471. doi:10.1177/0956797613494850
8.
Cedrus Corporation. (2003). RB-730 response pad [computer hardware]. San Pedro, CA.
9.
DesmetC., FiasW., & BrassM. (2012). Preparing or executing the wrong task: The influence on switch effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1172–1184. doi:10.1080/17470218.2011.645840
10.
de Jong, R. (2000). An intention-activation account of residual switch costs. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 357–376). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
KieselA., SteinhauserM., WendtM., FalkensteinM., JostK., PhilippA. M., & KochI. (2010). Control and interference in task switching–a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874. doi:10.1037/a0019842
12.
LenartowiczA., YeungN., & CohenJ. D. (2011). No-go trials can modulate switch cost by interfering with effects of task preparation. Psychological Research, 75(1), 66–76. doi:10.1007/s00426-010-0286-3
13.
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 Performance, 29(3), 575–599. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.3.575
14.
LoganG. D., & SchneiderD. W. (2006). Priming or executive control? Associative priming of cue encoding increases “switch costs” in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Memory & Cognition, 34(6), 1250–1259. doi:10.3758/BF03193269
15.
LosS. A., & Van der BurgE. (2010). The origin of switch costs: Task preparation or task application?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006), 63(10), 1895–1915. doi:10.1080/17470211003651849
16.
MayrU., & KlieglR. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 29(3), 362–372. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.362
17.
MeiranN. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 22(6), 1423–1442.
MonsellS., & MizonG. A. (2006). Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process?Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 493–516. doi:2006-08586-001
21.
MonsellS., SumnerP., & WatersH. (2003). Task-set reconfiguration with predictable and unpredictable task switches. Memory and Cognition, 31(3), 327–342. doi:10.3758/BF03194391
22.
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 Cognition, 33(6), 1062–1075. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.1062
23.
RogersR. D., & MonsellS. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231.
24.
RubinsteinJ. S., MeyerD. E., & EvansJ. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763–797. doi:10.1037//0096-1523.27.4.763
25.
SchuchS., & KochI. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(1), 92–105. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.92
26.
SwainsonR., & MartinD. (2013). Covert judgements are sufficient to trigger subsequent task-switching costs. Psychological Research, 77(4), 434–448. doi:10.1007/s00426-012-0448-6
27.
VandierendonckA., LiefoogheB., & VerbruggenF. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 601–626. doi:10.1037/a0019791
28.
VerbruggenF., LiefoogheB., & VandierendonckA. (2006). Selective stopping in task switching: The role of response selection and response execution. Experimental Psychology, 53(1), 48–57. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.53.1.48
