Trial-to-trial modulation of task-order switch costs survive long inter-trial intervals.
Dual tasks
Executive functions
PRP
Task order
Task-order control
Journal
BMC psychology
ISSN: 2050-7283
Titre abrégé: BMC Psychol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101627676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Mar 2022
22 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
07
10
2021
accepted:
24
02
2022
entrez:
23
3
2022
pubmed:
24
3
2022
medline:
25
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Dual-tasking procedures often involve the successive presentation of two different stimuli, requiring participants to execute two tasks in a particular order. Performance in both tasks suffers if the order of the tasks is reversed (i.e., switched) compared to the directly preceding trial. This task-order switch cost is reduced, however, if the preceding trial itself involved a task-order switch compared to a task-order repetition (Strobach in Acta Psychol 217:103328, 2021). Theoretical accounts range from assumptions of top-down implementation of a task-order control set, or passive persistence thereof, to priming based on episodic binding of tasks and temporal positions. Here, we tested these accounts by investigating whether the sequential modulation decays as a function of the inter-trial interval. Task-order switch costs were reliably reduced after a task-order switch (compared to after a task-order repetition) and this reduction did not decrease over inter-trial intervals ranging from 350 ms to 1,400 ms. Also replicating previous findings, for reaction times the reduction was driven by selective slowing in task-order repeat trials, suggesting increased response caution. Our results are consistent with preparatory processes of task-order control or with episodic integration of task-order information but argue against accounts assuming short-lived, decaying task-order sets.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Dual-tasking procedures often involve the successive presentation of two different stimuli, requiring participants to execute two tasks in a particular order. Performance in both tasks suffers if the order of the tasks is reversed (i.e., switched) compared to the directly preceding trial. This task-order switch cost is reduced, however, if the preceding trial itself involved a task-order switch compared to a task-order repetition (Strobach in Acta Psychol 217:103328, 2021). Theoretical accounts range from assumptions of top-down implementation of a task-order control set, or passive persistence thereof, to priming based on episodic binding of tasks and temporal positions. Here, we tested these accounts by investigating whether the sequential modulation decays as a function of the inter-trial interval.
METHODS AND RESULTS
RESULTS
Task-order switch costs were reliably reduced after a task-order switch (compared to after a task-order repetition) and this reduction did not decrease over inter-trial intervals ranging from 350 ms to 1,400 ms. Also replicating previous findings, for reaction times the reduction was driven by selective slowing in task-order repeat trials, suggesting increased response caution.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results are consistent with preparatory processes of task-order control or with episodic integration of task-order information but argue against accounts assuming short-lived, decaying task-order sets.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35317848
doi: 10.1186/s40359-022-00784-x
pii: 10.1186/s40359-022-00784-x
pmc: PMC8941775
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
77Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2013 Feb;39(1):271-84
pubmed: 22428671
Psychol Bull. 1994 Sep;116(2):220-44
pubmed: 7972591
Trends Cogn Sci. 2019 Sep;23(9):769-783
pubmed: 31331794
Psychol Res. 2022 Mar;86(2):452-473
pubmed: 33884485
Atten Percept Psychophys. 2019 Oct;81(7):2139-2154
pubmed: 31168699
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Jun;64(6):1056-81
pubmed: 21113864
Front Biosci. 2008 May 01;13:3569-80
pubmed: 18508456
Psychon Bull Rev. 2013 Aug;20(4):798-805
pubmed: 23371807
Front Psychol. 2010 Sep 16;1:154
pubmed: 21833220
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2019 Jul;198:102869
pubmed: 31228719
Acta Psychol (Amst). 2021 Jun;217:103328
pubmed: 33991794
J Cogn Neurosci. 2019 Dec;31(12):1840-1856
pubmed: 31479348
Front Psychol. 2014 Sep 16;5:1042
pubmed: 25278926
Psychon Bull Rev. 2019 Feb;26(1):325-331
pubmed: 29869024
Psychol Res. 2018 Jan;82(1):40-53
pubmed: 28856434
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Jun;29(3):556-74
pubmed: 12848326
Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Dec;8(12):539-46
pubmed: 15556023
Psychol Res. 2006 Nov;70(6):541-52
pubmed: 16142491
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
J Exp Psychol Gen. 1992 Dec;121(4):480-506
pubmed: 1431740
Cogn Psychol. 2016 Dec;91:82-108
pubmed: 27821256
Neuropsychologia. 1971 Mar;9(1):97-113
pubmed: 5146491
Psychol Res. 2021 Feb;85(1):345-363
pubmed: 31667597
Psychol Rev. 2001 Jul;108(3):624-52
pubmed: 11488380
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Jun;32(3):644-67
pubmed: 16822130
Front Psychol. 2015 Apr 07;6:403
pubmed: 25904890
Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Feb;13(1):112-7
pubmed: 16724777
Psychon Bull Rev. 2011 Feb;18(1):76-82
pubmed: 21327366
Psychol Rev. 1997 Jan;104(1):3-65
pubmed: 9009880