title: On the Use of Response Chunking as a Tool to Investigate Strategies.
abstract: In this perspective we suggest that chunking can be used as an investigative tool to determine the characteristics of other cognitive phenomena. We present an example of the usefulness of chunking multiple responses to aid in understanding object switch costs. Switch costs refer to the shorter response times for manipulation of the same item on two trials in a row compared to a switch between items. It is presently unclear if this result is due to structural or strategic processes. We provide a short review of past literature on switch costs and a proof-of-concept example that chunking may shed new light on this topic. We examined this question with boxes filled with numbers to be arithmetically updated and memorized. A situation in which there were two response items to be manipulated per trial eliminated or reversed the switch cost effect. We suggest that participants use a strategy in which the two output responses were chunked together, making it unfeasible to prepare separately for a repetition of the most recent item as participants do in other circumstances. Our data suggest that even a well-studied phenomenon can benefit theoretically from the use of chunking as a research tool.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia MO, USA.
authors.forename: Christopher L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Blume
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara CA, USA.
authors.forename: Alexander P
authors.initials: AP
authors.lastname: Boone
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia MO, USA.
authors.forename: Nelson
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Cowan
keywords: chunking; focus of attention; switch costs; updating; working memory
references.citation: Can J Exp Psychol. 2010 Sep;64(3):208-14
references.pmid: 20873917
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1956 Mar;63(2):81-97
references.pmid: 13310704
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Apr;16(2):225-37
references.pmid: 19293088
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 Nov;37(6):1484-502
references.pmid: 21767065
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 2009 Feb;138(1):64-87
references.pmid: 19203170
references.citation: Psychophysiology. 2003 Jul;40(4):572-85
references.pmid: 14570165
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 May;28(3):411-21
references.pmid: 12018494
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2006 Apr;17(4):346-50
references.pmid: 16623693
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011 Apr;37(2):606-14
references.pmid: 21463089
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2010 Feb;17(1):1-14
references.pmid: 20081154
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006 May;32(3):570-85
references.pmid: 16719667