Investigating the impact of dynamic and static secondary tasks on task-switch cost

Abstract

Many researchers have employed secondary tasks, which have to be performed in parallel with a primary task requirement, to examine how successful task selection is accomplished in the context of task switching. The influence of such a secondary task on the observed switch cost (i.e., the cost arising when the currently relevant task differs from the task performed most recently) is seen as indicative that cognitive processes such as self-instruction are involved. Most secondary tasks chosen so far have required the repeated utterance of a word or syllable or a rhythmic movement of the foot. In the present study, we manipulated the dynamics of the to-be-performed secondary task (i.e., a repeated utterance or movement, or a static task that involved similar muscles-holding a spattle in the mouth or pressing keys). Additionally, we tested for modality-specific influences by asking participants to perform a dynamic or nondynamic (i.e., static) secondary task with two effector systems, namely oral and manual. Overall, our secondary tasks led to a reduced (rather than an increased) switch cost, as compared to a control condition without any secondary task. This reduction in switch cost was dependent on the secondary-task dynamics but independent of the effectors involved, showing larger switch-cost reductions for dynamic secondary tasks. To explain this finding, we suggest that performing secondary tasks interferes with the formation of episodic-memory traces that would lead to retrieval benefits in the case of a task repetition, so that our reduced task-switch costs actually represent reduced repetition benefits.

Simon Says—On the influence of stimulus arrangement, stimulus material and inner speech habits on the Simon effect.

“…Note, however, that both articulatory suppression and suitable control conditions (e.g., rhythmic foot tapping) involve secondary task demands. Likewise, it remains open whether verbal representations were formed in the first place or only in consequence of the newly introduced secondary task requirement that requires scheduling processes (e.g., grouping response and articulation; Gade, Friedrich, & Koch, 2019; Mayr et al, 2014).…”

“…That is, we tentatively speculate that participants did not suffer so much from the incongruent condition but rather experienced costs for the congruent condition, in that participants suppress otherwise facilitative bottom-up driven activation. To provide preliminary evidence to this idea (see also Gade et al, 2019 or a similar argument in task switching context), we tested for significant differences in mean RTs for congruent conditions, differing in stimulus arrangement. We observed significantly increased RTs for the congruent vertical word condition in Experiment 1 compared to the congruent horizontal word condition, t (43.53) = −2.83, p = .008, d = 0.83.…”

Reconfiguration of response‐set in task switching: Event‐related potential evidence

“…The task‐switching paradigm, in which participants must switch between at least two tasks, has frequently been used to investigate flexible behavioural adaptation (Gade et al, 2014; Kiesel et al, 2010; Koch et al, 2018; Monsell, 2003). One finding that received special consideration is that response repetition (RR) produces response time (RT) and/or accuracy benefits in task‐repetition trials but cost in task‐switching trials, which are termed as RR effects (Altmann, 2011; Gade et al, 2019; Quinlan, 1999; Rogers & Monsell, 1995; Wesslein et al, 2019).…”