scholarly journals Erratum to: No evidence for shared representations of task sets in joint task switching

2016 ◽  
Vol 81 (6) ◽  
pp. 1178-1179
Author(s):  
Motonori Yamaguchi ◽  
Helen J. Wall ◽  
Bernhard Hommel
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Shared Representations ◽  
Joint Task ◽  
Task Sets

scholarly journals No evidence for shared representations of task sets in joint task switching

2016 ◽  
Vol 81 (6) ◽  
pp. 1166-1177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Motonori Yamaguchi ◽  
Helen J. Wall ◽  
Bernhard Hommel
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Shared Representations ◽  
Joint Task ◽  
Task Sets

scholarly journals EXPRESS: When Two Actors Perform Different Tasks: Still No Evidence for Shared Task-Sets in Joint Task Switching

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110315
Author(s):  
Motonori Yamaguchi ◽  
Husnain H. Shah ◽  
Bernhard Hommel
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
The Other ◽  
Shared Task ◽  
Joint Condition ◽  
Task Instructions ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Joint Task ◽  
Task Sets ◽  
Rule Out

Two different variations of joint task switching led to different conclusions as to whether co-acting individuals share the same task-sets. The present study aimed at bridging this gap by replicating the version in which two actors performed two different tasks. Experiment 1 showed switch costs across two actors in a joint condition, which agreed with previous studies, but also yielded even larger switch costs in a solo condition, which contradicted the claim that actors represent an alternative task as their own when it is carried out by the co-actor but not when no one carries it out. Experiments 2 and 3 further examined switch costs in the solo condition with the aim to rule out possible influences of task instructions for and experiences with the other task that was not assigned to the actor. Before participants were instructed on the second of the two tasks, switch costs were still obtained without a co-actor when explicit task names (“COLOUR” and “SHAPE”) served as go/nogo signals (Experiment 2), but not when arbitrary symbols (“XXXX” and “​​​​”) served as go/nogo signals (Experiment 3). The results thus imply that switch costs depend on participants’ knowledge of task cues being assigned to two different tasks, but not on whether the other task is performed by a co-actor. These findings undermine the assumption that switch costs in the joint conditions reflect shared task-sets between co-actors in this procedure.

scholarly journals When Two Actors Perform Different Tasks: Still No Evidence for Shared Task-Sets in Joint Task Switching

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Motonori Yamaguchi ◽  
Bernhard Hommel
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
The Other ◽  
Shared Task ◽  
Joint Condition ◽  
Task Instructions ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Joint Task ◽  
Task Sets ◽  
Rule Out

Two different variations of joint task switching led to different conclusions as to whether co-acting individuals share the same task-sets. The present study aimed at bridging this gap by replicating the version in which two actors performed two different tasks. Experiment 1 showed switch costs across two actors in a joint condition, which agreed with previous studies, but also yielded even larger switch costs in a solo condition, which contradicted the claim that actors represent an alternative task as their own when it is carried out by the co-actor but not when no one carries it out. Experiments 2 and 3 further examined switch costs in the solo condition with the aim to rule out possible influences of task instructions for and experiences with the other task that was not assigned to the actor. Before participants were instructed on the second of the two tasks, switch costs were still obtained without a co-actor when explicit task names (“COLOUR” and “SHAPE”) served as go/nogo signals (Experiment 2), but not when arbitrary symbols (“XXXX” and “++++”) served as go/nogo signals (Experiment 3). The results thus imply that switch costs depend on participants’ knowledge of task cues being assigned to two different tasks, but not on whether the other task is performed by a co-actor. These findings undermine the assumption that switch costs in the joint conditions reflect shared task-sets between co-actors in this procedure.

scholarly journals No-go trials in task switching: effects on the task-set and task-space level

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juliane Scheil ◽  
Thomas Kleinsorge
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
The Other ◽  
Specific Task ◽  
Task Space ◽  
Response Level ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Common Marker ◽  
Task Sets ◽  
And Task

AbstractA common marker for inhibition processes in task switching are n − 2 repetition costs. The present study aimed at elucidating effects of no-go trials on n − 2 repetition costs. In contrast to the previous studies, no-go trials were associated with only one of the three tasks in the present two experiments. High n − 2 repetition costs occurred if the no-go task had to be executed in trial n − 2, irrespective of whether a response had to be withheld or not. In contrast, no n − 2 repetition costs were visible if the other two tasks were relevant in n − 2. Whereas this n − 2 effect was unaffected by whether participants could reliably exclude a no-go trial or not, effects of no-gos in trial n were determined by this knowledge. The results differ from effects of no-go trials that are not bound to a specific task. It is assumed that the present no-go variation exerted its effect not on the response level, but on the level of task sets, resulting in enhanced salience of the no-go task that leads to higher activation and, as a consequence, to stronger inhibition. The dissociation of the effects on no-gos in trials n − 2 and n as a function of foreknowledge suggests that the balance between activation and inhibition is shifted not only for single trials and tasks, but for the whole task space.

The shielding function of task sets and its relaxation during task switching.

2011 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 1540-1546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gesine Dreisbach ◽  
Dorit Wenke
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Task Sets

Task Switching: Evidence for the Parallel Activity of Task Sets

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Kiesel ◽  
Wilfried Kunde ◽  
Joachim Hoffmann
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Task Sets

Joint task switching

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baptist Liefooghe
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Joint Task

scholarly journals Examining the Trainability and Transferability of Working-Memory Gating Policies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katrina Sabah ◽  
Nachshon Meiran ◽  
Gesine Dreisbach
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Task Structure ◽  
Training Task ◽  
Context Processing ◽  
Control Policies ◽  
Switching Performance ◽  
Internal Working ◽  
Task Sets

AbstractInternal working memory (WM) gating control policies have been suggested to constitute a critical component of task-sets that can be learned and transferred to very similar task contexts (Bhandari and Badre (Cognition, 172, 33–43, 2018). Here, we attempt to expand these findings, examining whether such control policies can be also trained and transferred to other untrained cognitive control tasks, namely to task switching and AX-CPT. To this end, a context-processing WM task was used for training, allowing to manipulate either input (i.e., top-down selective entry of information into WM) or output (i.e., bottom-up selective retrieval of WM) gating control policies by employing either a context-first (CF) or context-last (CL) task structure, respectively. In this task, two contextual cues were each associated with two different stimuli. In CF condition, each trial began with a contextual cue, determining which of the two subsequent stimuli is target relevant. In contrast, in the CL condition the contextual cue appeared last, preceded by a target and non-target stimulus successively. Participants completed a task switching baseline assessment, followed by one practice and six training blocks with the WM context-processing training task. After completing training, task-switching and AX-CPT transfer blocks were administrated, respectively. As hypothesized, compared to CL training condition, CF training led to improved task-switching performance. However, contrary to our predictions, training type did not influence AX-CPT performance. Taken together, the current results provide further evidence that internal control policies are (1) inherent element of task-sets, also in task switching and (2) independent of S-R mappings. However, these results need to be cautiously interpreted due to baseline differences in task-switching performance between the conditions (overall slower RTs in the CF condition). Importantly though, our results open a new venue for the realm of cognitive enhancement, pointing here for the first time to the potential of control policies training in promoting wider transfer effects.

Cue–task associations in task switching

2007 ◽  
Vol 60 (6) ◽  
pp. 762-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Gade ◽  
Iring Koch
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Flexibility ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Negative Transfer ◽  
Training Phase ◽  
Task Mapping ◽  
Mental Task ◽  
Preparation Time ◽  
Transfer Paradigm ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Task Sets

Cognitive flexibility can be studied using the task-switching paradigm. This paradigm requires subjects to adapt behaviour to changing contexts as indicated by a cue. In our study, we addressed the question of how cue-based implementation of mental “task sets” occurs. We assumed that cues build up associations to the tasks that they indicate. These associations lead to retrieval of the associated task set once the cue shows up again. In three experiments, we tested this assumption using a negative transfer paradigm. First participants were exposed to one cue–task mapping. After a training phase, the cue–task mapping changed in either of two ways. Whereas one group of participants got new cues, the other experienced a reversal of the learnt cue–task mapping. Our results show that participants build up cue–task associations and that these formerly learnt associations can hamper the implementation of new cue–task mappings (particular with mapping reversal). Prolonged preparation time decreased the cost of changing the cue–task mapping but did not change the overall pattern of results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document