The task-switching paradigm offers enormous possibilities to study cognitive control as well as task interference. The current review provides an overview of recent research on both topics. First, we review different experimental approaches to task switching, such as comparing mixed-task blocks with singletask blocks, predictable task-switching and task-cuing paradigms, intermittent instructions, and voluntary task selection. In the 2nd part, we discuss findings on preparatory control mechanisms in task switching and theoretical accounts of task preparation. We consider preparation processes in two-stage models, consider preparation as an all-or-none process, address the question of whether preparation is switchspecific, reflect on preparation as interaction of cue encoding and memory retrieval, and discuss the impact of verbal mediation on preparation. In the 3rd part, we turn to interference phenomena in task switching. We consider proactive interference of tasks and inhibition of recently performed tasks indicated by asymmetrical switch costs and n-2 task-repetition costs. We discuss stimulus-based interference as a result of stimulus-based response activation and stimulus-based task activation, and response-based interference because of applying bivalent rather than univalent responses, response repetition effects, and carryover of response selection and execution. In the 4th and final part, we mention possible future research fields.Keywords: task switching, cognitive control, interference Human behavior is highly adaptive and flexible in response to changing environmental demands. This flexibility requires complex cognitive control processes, which allow humans to not only respond reactively but also to behave in a more proactive way to achieve goals and to perform tasks. The exploration of the proAndrea Kiesel, Department of Psychology, University of Wiirzburg, Wiirzburg, Germany; Marco Steinhauser, Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany; Mike Wendt, Experimental Psychology Unit, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany; Michael Falkenstein, Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, TU Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany; Kerstin Jost, Department of Psychology, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany, and Department of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; Andrea M. Philipp and Iring Koch, Department of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University.This article was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) in the context of the priority program "Executive Functions" (Grants Fa 211115-1,2; Ho 1301/8-1,2,3; Hu 432/8-1,2,3; KI 488/6-1,2,3; Ko 2045/4-1,2,3; and Ro 529/17-1,2,3). We thank Stephen Monsell for very helpful comments on earlier versions of the article.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrea Kiesel, Department of Psychology, University of Wiirzburg, Rontgenring 11, 97070 Wiirzburg, Germany, or to Iring Koch, Lehrstuhl fur Psycholo!,>ie I, RWTH Aachen University, Jiigerstrasse 17-19,52056 Aachen, Germany. ...

No abstract

No abstract

We used language-defined response sets (digit names from 1 to 9 in different languages) to explore inhibitory processes in language switching. Subjects were required to switch between two (Experiment 1) or among three (Experiment 2) languages. In Experiment 1, we obtained a shift cost when subjects switched between their first and second language, between their first and third language, or between their second and third language. For each language pairing, the shift cost was larger for the relatively dominant language than for the nondominant language (i.e., asymmetric shift cost). In Experiment 2, we assessed inhibition of response sets as reflected in n-2 repetition cost (i.e., the difference between ABA and CBA language sequences). We discuss both effects with respect to inhibitory processes in language switching. The results suggest different functional characteristics of the processes underlying asymmetric shift cost and n-2 repetition cost