Task switching versus cue switching: using transition cuing to disentangle sequential effects in task-switching performance.
Recent methodological advances have allowed researchers to address confounds in the measurement of task-switch costs in task-switching performance by dissociating cue switching from task switching. For example, in the transition-cuing procedure, which involves presenting cues for task transitions rather than for tasks, cue transitions (cue switches and cue repetitions) and task transitions (task switches and task repetitions) can be examined in a complete factorial design. Transition cuing removes the confound between cue transitions and first-order task transitions, but it introduces a confound between cue transitions and longer task sequences. In the present study, transition cuing was studied with two cues per transition (REPEAT and AGAIN for task repetitions; SWITCH and CHANGE for task switches), enabling a partial deconfounding of cue transitions and task sequences. Two experiments revealed robust sequential effects, with higher order task transitions affecting performance when cue transitions were held constant and with cue transitions affecting performance when task sequences were held constant. Methodological and theoretical implications of these findings for research on task switching are discussed.
Schneider
Darryl W
DW
Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203, USA. darryl.schneider@vanderbilt.edu
Logan
Gordon D
GD
D001288:Attention; D001364:Awareness; D003463:Cues; D007839:Functional Laterality; D006801:Humans; D007721:Knowledge of Results, Psychological; D009949:Orientation; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D011340:Problem Solving; D011597:Psychomotor Performance; D011930:Reaction Time; D012193:Reversal Learning