title: What are task-sets: a single, integrated representation or a collection of multiple control representations?
abstract: Performing two randomly alternating tasks typically results in higher reaction times (RTs) following a task switch, relative to a task repetition. These task switch costs (TSC) reflect processes of switching between control settings for different tasks. The present study investigated whether task sets operate as a single, integrated representation or as an agglomeration of relatively independent components. In a cued task switch paradigm, target detection (present/absent) and discrimination (blue/green/right-/left-tilted) tasks alternated randomly across trials. The target was either a color or an orientation singleton among homogeneous distractors. Across two trials, the task and target-defining dimension repeated or changed randomly. For task switch trials, agglomerated task sets predict a difference between dimension changes and repetitions: joint task and dimension switches require full task set reconfiguration, while dimension repetitions permit re-using some control settings from the previous trial. By contrast, integrated task sets always require full switches, predicting dimension repetition effects (DREs) to be absent across task switches. RT analyses showed significant DREs across task switches as well as repetitions supporting the notion of agglomerated task sets. Additionally, two event-related potentials (ERP) were analyzed: the Posterior-Contralateral-Negativity (PCN) indexing spatial selection dynamics, and the Sustained-Posterior-Contralateral-Negativity (SPCN) indexing post-selective perceptual/semantic analysis. Significant DREs across task switches were observed for both the PCN and SPCN components. Together, DREs across task switches for RTs and two functionally distinct ERP components suggest that re-using control settings across different tasks is possible. The results thus support the "agglomerated-task-set" hypothesis, and are inconsistent with "integrated task sets."
authors.affiliation: Department Psychologie, Allgemeine und Experimentelle Psychologie I, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München München, Germany.
authors.forename: Dragan
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Rangelov
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Töllner
authors.forename: Hermann J
authors.initials: HJ
authors.lastname: Müller
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Zehetleitner
keywords: attentional selection; electroencephalography; executive control; perceptual processing; task sets; task switching
references.citation: Brain Res Cogn Brain Res. 2001 Mar;11(1):59-75
references.pmid: 11240112
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jul 10;109(28):E1990-9
references.pmid: 22733755
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1996 Jan;58(1):88-101
references.pmid: 8668524
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2012 Jul;22(7):1554-63
references.pmid: 21903593
references.citation: Brain Res. 2012 Apr 27;1451:53-64
references.pmid: 22444277
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2007 Aug;181(3):531-6
references.pmid: 17602216
references.citation: J Vis. 2013 Aug 02;13(3):
references.pmid: 23912067
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2000;63(3-4):234-49
references.pmid: 11004878
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011 Oct;37(5):1369-82
references.pmid: 21688945
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 Jan;35(1):122-36
references.pmid: 19210085
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2012 Apr;74(3):540-52
references.pmid: 22160820
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2008 Jun;34(3):531-42
references.pmid: 18505321
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010 Oct;135(2):117-22; discussion 133-9
references.pmid: 20579624
references.citation: PLoS One. 2011 Jan 21;6(1):e16276
references.pmid: 21283699
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Oct 20;106(42):17974-9
references.pmid: 19805050
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2003 Jun;46(4):361-413
references.pmid: 12809680
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005 Oct;31(5):1067-82
references.pmid: 16262499
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2005 Sep;42(5):540-54
references.pmid: 16176376
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2001 May;27(3):640-53
references.pmid: 11394671
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2012 Jul;74(5):879-90
references.pmid: 22391894
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2000;63(3-4):212-33
references.pmid: 11004877
references.citation: Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1996 Sep;99(3):225-34
references.pmid: 8862112
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2008 Oct;36(7):1248-61
references.pmid: 18927041
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2003 Apr;31(3):327-42
references.pmid: 12795475
references.citation: Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2009 Jun;9(2):202-15
references.pmid: 19403896
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2003 May;40(3):329-48
references.pmid: 12946108
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2005;52(2):83-98
references.pmid: 15850156
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2007 Jul;71(4):383-92
references.pmid: 16397812
references.citation: Brain Res. 2008 Jun 18;1215:160-72
references.pmid: 18482718
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2006 Sep;34(6):1250-9
references.pmid: 17225506
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2002 May;44(3):297-337
references.pmid: 11971634
references.citation: J Cogn Neurosci. 2002 Nov 15;14(8):1139-50
references.pmid: 12495521
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Oct;24(5):849-78; discussion 878-937
references.pmid: 12239891
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2001 Apr;108(2):393-434
references.pmid: 11381835
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2004;51(2):145-9
references.pmid: 15114907
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994 Oct;20(5):1000-14
references.pmid: 7964526
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006 Nov;32(6):1221-33
references.pmid: 17087579
references.citation: Psychol Res. 2008 Sep;72(5):473-500
references.pmid: 18350316
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2003 Jul;31(5):781-9
references.pmid: 12956242
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2009 Mar 25;29(12):3930-8
references.pmid: 19321789
references.citation: Neuropsychologia. 2008 Oct;46(12):2924-35
references.pmid: 18601941