scholarly journals The Roles of Action Selection and Actor Selection in Joint Task Settings

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Motonori Yamaguchi ◽  
Helen Joanne Wall ◽  
Bernhard Hommel
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Action Selection ◽  
Shared Task ◽  
Task Context ◽  
Task Representation ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Joint Task ◽  
Single Response ◽  
As If

Studies on joint task performance have proposed that co-acting individuals co-represent the shared task context, which implies that actors integrate their co-actor’s task components into their own task representation as if they were all their own task. Evidence supporting this proposal has been supported by results of joint tasks in which each actor is assigned a single response where selecting a response is equivalent to selecting an actor. The present study used joint task switching, which has previously shown switch costs on trials following the actor’s own trial (intrapersonal switch costs) but not on trials that followed the co-actor’s trial (interpersonal switch costs), suggesting that there is no task co-representation. We examined whether interpersonal switch costs can be obtained when action selection and actor selection are confounded as in previous joint task studies. The present results confirmed this prediction, demonstrating that switch costs can occur within a single actor as well as between co-actors when there is only a single response per actor, but not when there are two responses per actor. These results indicate that task co-representation is not necessarily implied even when effects occur across co-acting individuals and that how the task is divided between co-actors plays an important role in determining how the actors represent the divided task components.

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 Action-Effect Sharing Induces Task-Set Sharing in Joint Task Switching

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Motonori Yamaguchi ◽  
Helen Joanne Wall ◽  
Bernhard Hommel
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Random Order ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Action Effect ◽  
Action Effects ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Joint Task ◽  
Relevant Task ◽  
Set Sharing

A central issue in the study of joint task performance has been one of whether co-acting individuals perform their partner’s part of the task as if it were their own. The present study addressed this issue by using joint task switching. A pair of actors shared two tasks that were presented in a random order, whereby the relevant task and actor were cued on each trial. Responses produced action effects that were either shared or separate between co-actors. When co-actors produced separate action effects, switch costs were obtained within the same actor (i.e., when the same actor performed consecutive trials) but not between co-actors (when different actors performed consecutive trials), implying that actors did not perform their co-actor’s part. When the same action effects were shared between co-actors, however, switch costs were also obtained between co-actors, implying that actors did perform their co-actor’s part. The results indicated that shared action effects induce task-set sharing between co-acting individuals.

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 Do People Mentally Represent Automated Tasks? Evidence from Task-Switching Costs Following Takeovers

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 1227-1231
Author(s):  
Martina K. Hollearn ◽  
James D. Miles
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Switching Costs ◽  
Task Switch ◽  
Driving Experience ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Indirect Measures ◽  
Joint Task ◽  
Driving Task ◽  
New Challenges

Partially automated vehicles, in which automation performs parts of the driving task, introduce new challenges of automation monitoring and human-automation teaming to the driving experience. We describe a new method for measuring whether operators mentally represent automated task performance using a version of the joint task-switching (JTS) task paradigm. In the JTS task, an operator and a teammate take turns performing two intermixed tasks. Following takeover from the teammate, task-switching costs (slower responses following a task switch vs repetition) indicate that the operator mentally represents the teammate’s performance. We measured performance following task switches and repetitions with and without a takeover from automation. Switch costs disappeared following takeovers, indicating a lack of representation of the prior automated task. We discuss how task switch costs following takeovers can serve as indirect measures of whether operators mentally represent automated task performance in mixed automation situations.

Balancing cognitive and environmental constraints when deciding to switch tasks: Exploring self-reported task-selection strategies in self-organised multitasking

2020 ◽  
pp. 174702182097007
Author(s):  
Victor Mittelstädt ◽  
Insa Schaffernak ◽  
Jeff Miller ◽  
Andrea Kiesel
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Task Switch ◽  
Environmental Constraints ◽  
Task Selection ◽  
Cognitive Constraints ◽  
Selection Strategies ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Switching Behaviour

We investigated how people balance cognitive constraints (switch costs) against environmental constraints (stimulus availabilities) to optimise their voluntary task switching performance and explored individual differences in their switching behaviour. Specifically, in a self-organised task-switching environment, the stimulus needed for a task repetition was delayed by a stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) that increased with each consecutive repetition until a task switch reset the SOA. As predicted, participants switched tasks when the SOA in task switches approximately matched their individual switch costs and thus they optimised local task performance. Interestingly, self-reports (confirmed by behavioural switching patterns) revealed two individual strategies: some participants ( N = 34) indicated to guide their task selection behaviour based on preplanned task sequences over several trials, whereas others ( N = 42) indicated to primarily decide on a trial-by-trial basis whether to switch or to repeat tasks. Exploration of switching behaviour based on the two strategy groups revealed additional insights into how people achieved adaptive task selection behaviour in this task environment. Overall, the present findings suggest that individuals select tasks with the aim of improving task performance when dealing with multiple task requirements, but they differ in their preferred individual task selection strategies.

A Review of the Role of Cue Processing in Task Switching

2013 ◽  
Vol 221 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin Jost ◽  
Wouter De Baene ◽  
Iring Koch ◽  
Marcel Brass
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Control ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Task Switch ◽  
Task Set ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Set Switching ◽  
Controversial Topic ◽  
Cue Encoding ◽  
Cue Processing

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.

Effects of Monetary Incentives on Task Switching

2012 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 216-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Kleinsorge ◽  
Gerhard Rinkenauer
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Temporal Dynamics ◽  
Reward Processing ◽  
General Level ◽  
Monetary Incentives ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Expectancy Effect ◽  
Reward Expectancy ◽  
Trial Basis

In two experiments, effects of incentives on task switching were investigated. Incentives were provided as a monetary bonus. In both experiments, the availability of a bonus varied on a trial-to-trial basis. The main difference between the experiments relates to the association of incentives to individual tasks. In Experiment 1, the association of incentives to individual tasks was fixed. Under these conditions, the effect of incentives was largely due to reward expectancy. Switch costs were reduced to statistical insignificance. This was true even with the task that was not associated with a bonus. In Experiment 2, there was a variable association of incentives to individual tasks. Under these conditions, the reward expectancy effect was bound to conditions with a well-established bonus-task association. In conditions in which the bonus-task association was not established in advance, enhanced performance of the bonus task was accompanied by performance decrements with the task that was not associated with a bonus. Reward expectancy affected mainly the general level of performance. The outcome of this study may also inform recently suggested neurobiological accounts about the temporal dynamics of reward processing.

The Flip Side of the Auditory Spatial Selection Benefit

2015 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iring Koch ◽  
Vera Lawo
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Auditory Task ◽  
Numerical Magnitude ◽  
Attention Shifting ◽  
Gender Selection ◽  
Spatial Selection ◽  
Number Words ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Mixing Costs ◽  
Experimental Group

In cued auditory task switching, one of two dichotically presented number words, spoken by a female and a male, had to be judged according to its numerical magnitude. One experimental group selected targets by speaker gender and another group by ear of presentation. In mixed-task blocks, the target-defining feature (male/female vs. left/right) was cued prior to each trial, but in pure blocks it remained constant. Compared to selection by gender, selection by ear led to better performance in pure blocks than in mixed blocks, resulting in larger “global” mixing costs for ear-based selection. Selection by ear also led to larger “local” switch costs in mixed blocks, but this finding was partially mediated by differential cue-repetition benefits. Together, the data suggest that requirements of attention shifting diminish the auditory spatial selection benefit.

Current Task Activation Predicts General Effects of Advance Preparation in Task Switching

2006 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 260-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edita Poljac ◽  
Ab de Haan ◽  
Gerard P. van Galen
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Shape Matching ◽  
Response Times ◽  
Error Rates ◽  
Matching Task ◽  
Task Switch ◽  
Current Task ◽  
Within Subjects ◽  
And Task

Two experiments investigated the way that beforehand preparation influences general task execution in reaction-time matching tasks. Response times (RTs) and error rates were measured for switching and nonswitching conditions in a color- and shape-matching task. The task blocks could repeat (task repetition) or alternate (task switch), and the preparation interval (PI) was manipulated within-subjects (Experiment 1) and between-subjects (Experiment 2). The study illustrated a comparable general task performance after a long PI for both experiments, within and between PI manipulations. After a short PI, however, the general task performance increased significantly for the between-subjects manipulation of the PI. Furthermore, both experiments demonstrated an analogous preparation effect for both task switching and task repetitions. Next, a consistent switch cost throughout the whole run of trials and a within-run slowing effect were observed in both experiments. Altogether, the present study implies that the effects of the advance preparation go beyond the first trials and confirms different points of the activation approach ( Altmann, 2002) to task switching.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document