Control and interference in task switching—A review.

Abstract

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. ...

The effect of N–3 on N–2 repetition costs in task switching.

“…Many paradigms used in the task switching literature involve switching between competing stimulus-response rules, or category-response rules (Kiesel et al, 2010;Koch et al, 2010).…”

Perceived live interaction modulates the developing social brain

“…Consistent with this explanation, no difference in reaction time emerged when participants in a control study were told that the live stimuli were recorded. Future research involving interference tasks could help determine if increased mentalizing is the predominant cognitive mechanism driving behavioral differences in responding to live versus recorded partners (e.g., Kiesel et al, 2010).…”

The Interruptive Effect of Pain in a Multitask Environment: An Experimental Investigation

“…25 This line of research may further help identify the cognitive processes underlying memory and attentional problems often reported by patients with chronic pain. 14,19 Here, we adapted a standard task-switching procedure in which healthy volunteers are cued to repeat or to switch between three randomly presented tasks (see 25,42 for a review). One of the tasks sometimes co-occurred with pain and thus became a signal for possible pain.…”