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 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 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 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.

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 Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks? Contrary evidence for nonlinguistic and linguistic switching tasks

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
E. Mas-Herrero ◽  
D. Adrover-Roig ◽  
M. Ruz ◽  
R. de Diego-Balaguer
Keyword(s):  
Executive Functions ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
The Other ◽  
Bilingual Advantage ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Task Preparation ◽  
Language Control ◽  
The One ◽  
Switching Task ◽  
Contrary Evidence

Abstract The benefits of bilingualism in executive functions are highly debated. Even so, in switching tasks, these effects seem robust, although smaller than initially thought (Gunnerud et al., 2020; Ware et al., 2020). By handling two languages throughout their lifespan, bilinguals appear to train their executive functions and show benefits in nonlinguistic switching tasks compared to monolinguals. Nevertheless, because bilinguals need to control for the interference of another language, they may show a disadvantage when dealing with task-switching paradigms requiring language control, particularly when those are performed in their less dominant language. The present work explored this issue by studying bilingualism’s effects on task-switching within the visual and language domains. On the one hand, our results show that bilinguals were overall faster and presented reduced switch costs compared to monolinguals when performing perceptual geometric judgments with no time for task preparation. On the other hand, no bilingual advantage was found when a new sample of comparable bilinguals and monolinguals completed a within-language switching task. Our results provide clear evidence favoring the bilingual advantage, yet only when the task imposes greater executive demands and does not involve language control.

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 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.

scholarly journals How Sequentially Changing Reward Prospect Modulates Meta-control: Increasing Reward Prospect Promotes Cognitive Flexibility

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin Fröber ◽  
Gesine Dreisbach
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Cognitive Flexibility ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Control Signal ◽  
The Other ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Cognitive Stability ◽  
High Reward ◽  
Nonsignificant Difference ◽  
Switch Rate

Abstract Meta-control is necessary to regulate the balance between cognitive stability and flexibility. Evidence from (voluntary) task switching studies suggests performance-contingent reward as one modulating factor. Depending on the immediate reward history, reward prospect seems to promote either cognitive stability or flexibility: Increasing reward prospect reduced switch costs and increased the voluntary switch rate, suggesting increased cognitive flexibility. In contrast, remaining high reward prospect increased switch costs and reduced the voluntary switch rate, suggesting increased cognitive stability. Recently we suggested that increasing reward prospect serves as a meta-control signal toward cognitive flexibility by lowering the updating threshold in working memory. However, in task switching paradigms with two tasks only, this could alternatively be explained by facilitated switching to the other of two tasks. To address this issue, a series of task switching experiments with uncued task switching between three univalent tasks was conducted. Results showed a reduction in reaction time (RT) switch costs to a nonsignificant difference and a high voluntary switch rate when reward prospect increased, whereas repetition RTs were faster, switch RTs slower, and voluntary switch rate was reduced when reward prospect remained high. That is, increasing reward prospect put participants in a state of equal readiness to respond to any target stimulus—be it a task repetition or a switch to one of the other two tasks. The study thus provides further evidence for the assumption that increasing reward prospect serves as a meta-control signal to increase cognitive flexibility, presumably by lowering the updating threshold in working memory.

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

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document