Electrophysiological evidence for impaired or postponed semantic processing during multitasking and task-set switching

Author(s):  
Francois Vachon ◽  
Pierre Jolicoeur
2013 ◽  
Vol 221 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin Jost ◽  
Wouter De Baene ◽  
Iring Koch ◽  
Marcel Brass

The role of cue processing has become a controversial topic in research on cognitive control using task-switching procedures. Some authors suggested a priming account to explain switch costs as a form of encoding benefit when the cue from the previous trial is repeated and hence challenged theories that attribute task-switch costs to task-set (re)configuration. A rich body of empirical evidence has evolved that indeed shows that cue-encoding repetition priming is an important component in task switching. However, these studies also demonstrate that there are usually substantial “true” task-switch costs. Here, we review this behavioral, electrophysiological, and brain imaging evidence. Moreover, we describe alternative approaches to the explicit task-cuing procedure, such as the usage of transition cues or the task-span procedure. In addition, we address issues related to the type of cue, such as cue transparency. We also discuss methodological and theoretical implications and argue that the explicit task-cuing procedure is suitable to address issues of cognitive control and task-set switching.


Author(s):  
Juliane Scheil ◽  
Thomas Kleinsorge

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.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jixin Han ◽  
Tomofumi Yuki ◽  
Michelle Mills Strout ◽  
Dan Umeda ◽  
Hironori Kasahara ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Holly A. H. Handley

The Soldier-Equipment-Task (SET) Framework identifies the three main components of a soldier system and the relationships between them. The human focused data collected by the Human Viewpoint during the system architecting phase can be used as initial reference data for the SET Framework. The Solder (or Human) Capability relationship is defined in the SET Framework between the Soldier and Task Components; this is where the majority of the Human Viewpoint data resides. This paper provides a mapping of the Human Viewpoint data to the SET Framework and develops a methodology to evaluate the Soldier-Task Human Capability relationship for use in Soldier System or other human system focused analyses.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document