Switching task sets creates event boundaries in memory

Cognition ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 221 ◽  
pp. 104992
Author(s):  
Yuxi Candice Wang ◽  
Tobias Egner
Keyword(s):  
Switching Task ◽  
Task Sets

ERPs dissociate the effects of switching task sets and task cues

2006 ◽  
Vol 1095 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Nicholson ◽  
Frini Karayanidis ◽  
Elizabeth Bumak ◽  
Dane Poboka ◽  
Patricia T. Michie
Keyword(s):  
Switching Task ◽  
Task Sets ◽  
And Task

The Involuntary Capture of Attention by Sound

2010 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabrice B. R. Parmentier ◽  
Pilar Andrés
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Mismatch Negativity ◽  
Visual Task ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Auditory Oddball ◽  
Current Trial ◽  
Electrophysiological Responses ◽  
Electrophysiological Studies ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Task Sets

The presentation of auditory oddball stimuli (novels) among otherwise repeated sounds (standards) triggers a well-identified chain of electrophysiological responses: The detection of acoustic change (mismatch negativity), the involuntary orientation of attention to (P3a) and its reorientation from the novel. Behaviorally, novels reduce performance in an unrelated visual task (novelty distraction). Past studies of the cross-modal capture of attention by acoustic novelty have typically discarded from their analysis the data from the standard trials immediately following a novel, despite some evidence in mono-modal oddball tasks of distraction extending beyond the presentation of deviants/novels (postnovelty distraction). The present study measured novelty and postnovelty distraction and examined the hypothesis that both types of distraction may be underpinned by common frontally-related processes by comparing young and older adults. Our data establish that novels delayed responses not only on the current trial and but also on the subsequent standard trial. Both of these effects increased with age. We argue that both types of distraction relate to the reconfiguration of task-sets and discuss this contention in relation to recent electrophysiological studies.

Task sets are modality specific

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Stephen ◽  
I. Koch
Keyword(s):  
Task Sets

Is technological change a devourer of jobs?

2017 ◽  
pp. 111-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Kapeliushnikov
Keyword(s):  
Technological Change ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Employment Growth ◽  
Foreseeable Future ◽  
Employment Effects ◽  
Technological Unemployment ◽  
Micro Level ◽  
Task Sets ◽  
The Impact

The paper provides a critical analysis of the idea of technological unemployment. The overview of the existing literature on the employment effects of technological change shows that on the micro-level there exists strong and positive relationship between innovations and employment growth in firms; on the sectoral level this correlation becomes ambiguous; on the macro-level the impact of new technologies seems to be positive or neutral. This implies that fears of explosive growth of technological unemployment in the foreseeable future are exaggerated. Our analysis further suggests that new technologies affect mostly the structure of employment rather than its level. Additionally we argue that automation and digitalisation would change mostly task sets within particular occupations rather than distribution of workers by occupations.

Task-order representations in dual tasks: Separate or integrated with component task sets?

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110184
Author(s):  
Lynn Huestegge ◽  
Mareike A Hoffmann ◽  
Tilo Strobach
Keyword(s):  
Temporal Order ◽  
Spatial Task ◽  
Task Characteristics ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Task Order ◽  
Order Task ◽  
Component Task ◽  
Specific Manner ◽  
Oculomotor Responses ◽  
Task Sets

In situations requiring the execution of two tasks at around the same time, we need to decide which of the tasks should be executed first. Previous research has revealed several factors that affect the outcome of such response order control processes, including bottom-up factors (e.g., the temporal order of the stimuli associated with the two tasks) and top-down factors (e.g., instructions). In addition, it has been shown that tasks associated with certain response modalities are preferably executed first (e.g., temporal prioritisation of tasks involving oculomotor responses). In this study, we focused on a situation in which task order has to be unpredictably switched from trial to trial and asked whether task-order representations are coded separately or integrated with the component task sets (i.e., in a task-specific manner). Across three experiments, we combined two tasks known to differ in prioritisation, namely an oculomotor and a manual (or pedal) task. The results indicated robust task-order switch costs (i.e., longer RTs when task order was switched vs. repeated). Importantly, the data demonstrate that it is possible to show an asymmetry of task-order switch costs: While these costs were of similar size for both task orders in one particular experimental setting with specific spatial task characteristics, two experiments consistently indicated that it was easier for participants to switch to their prioritised task order (i.e., to execute the dominant oculomotor task first). This suggests that in a situation requiring frequent task-order switches (indicated by unpredictable changes in stimulus order), task order is represented in an integrated, task-specific manner, bound to characteristics (here, associated effector systems) of the component tasks.

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 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.

Learning of across- and within-task contingencies modulates partial-repetition costs in dual-tasking

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lasse Pelzer ◽  
Christoph Naefgen ◽  
Robert Gaschler ◽  
Hilde Haider
Keyword(s):  
Dual Task ◽  
Discrimination Task ◽  
Experimental Approach ◽  
Feature Binding ◽  
Dual Tasking ◽  
Single Task ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Task Processing ◽  
Tone Discrimination ◽  
Task Sets

AbstractDual-task costs might result from confusions on the task-set level as both tasks are not represented as distinct task-sets, but rather being integrated into a single task-set. This suggests that events in the two tasks are stored and retrieved together as an integrated memory episode. In a series of three experiments, we tested for such integrated task processing and whether it can be modulated by regularities between the stimuli of the two tasks (across-task contingencies) or by sequential regularities within one of the tasks (within-task contingencies). Building on the experimental approach of feature binding in action control, we tested whether the participants in a dual-tasking experiment will show partial-repetition costs: they should be slower when only the stimulus in one of the two tasks is repeated from Trial n − 1 to Trial n than when the stimuli in both tasks repeat. In all three experiments, the participants processed a visual-manual and an auditory-vocal tone-discrimination task which were always presented concurrently. In Experiment 1, we show that retrieval of Trial n − 1 episodes is stable across practice if the stimulus material is drawn randomly. Across-task contingencies (Experiment 2) and sequential regularities within a task (Experiment 3) can compete with n − 1-based retrieval leading to a reduction of partial-repetition costs with practice. Overall the results suggest that participants do not separate the processing of the two tasks, yet, within-task contingencies might reduce integrated task processing.

scholarly journals Computational models of adaptive behavior and prefrontal cortex

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alireza Soltani ◽  
Etienne Koechlin
Keyword(s):  
Prefrontal Cortex ◽  
Adaptive Behavior ◽  
Computational Models ◽  
Cognitive Architecture ◽  
Behavioral Outcomes ◽  
Internal Models ◽  
Multiple Systems ◽  
Statistical Inferences ◽  
Neural Computations ◽  
Task Sets

AbstractThe real world is uncertain, and while ever changing, it constantly presents itself in terms of new sets of behavioral options. To attain the flexibility required to tackle these challenges successfully, most mammalian brains are equipped with certain computational abilities that rely on the prefrontal cortex (PFC). By examining learning in terms of internal models associating stimuli, actions, and outcomes, we argue here that adaptive behavior relies on specific interactions between multiple systems including: (1) selective models learning stimulus–action associations through rewards; (2) predictive models learning stimulus- and/or action–outcome associations through statistical inferences anticipating behavioral outcomes; and (3) contextual models learning external cues associated with latent states of the environment. Critically, the PFC combines these internal models by forming task sets to drive behavior and, moreover, constantly evaluates the reliability of actor task sets in predicting external contingencies to switch between task sets or create new ones. We review different models of adaptive behavior to demonstrate how their components map onto this unifying framework and specific PFC regions. Finally, we discuss how our framework may help to better understand the neural computations and the cognitive architecture of PFC regions guiding adaptive behavior.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document