Long-term memory and the control of attentional control

Abstract

Task-switch costs and in particular the switch-cost asymmetry (i.e., the larger costs of switching to a dominant than a non-dominant task) are usually explained in terms of trial-to-trial carry-over of task-specific control settings. Here we argue that task switches are just one example of situations that trigger a transition from working-memory maintenance to updating, thereby opening working memory to interference from long-term memory. We used a new paradigm that requires selecting a spatial location either on the basis of a central cue (i.e., endogenous control of attention) or a peripheral, sudden onset (i.e., exogenous control of attention). We found a strong cost asymmetry that occurred even after short interruptions of otherwise single-task blocks (Exp. 1-3), but that was much stronger when participants had experienced the competing task under conditions of conflict (Exp. 1-2). Experiment 3 showed that the asymmetric costs were due to interruptions per se, rather than to associative interference tied to specific interruption activities. Experiment 4 generalized the basic pattern across interruptions varying in length or control demands and Experiment 5 across primary tasks with response-selection conflict rather than attentional conflict. Combined, the results support a model in which costs of selecting control settings arise when (a) potentially interfering memory traces have been encoded in long-term memory and (b) working-memory is forced from a maintenance mode into an updating mode (e.g., through task interruptions), thereby allowing unwanted retrieval of the encoded memory traces.

Dissociative global and local task-switching costs across younger adults, middle-aged adults, older adults, and very mild Alzheimer’s disease individuals.

“…Specifically, Bryck and Mayr (2008; see too Mayr, Kuhns, & Hubbard, 2014) have suggested that local task-switching effects may not be due to the residual task set from the previous trial as traditionally argued, but instead reflect an updating of working memory to adjust from the previous task setting stored in long-term memory. Evidence for this process has been found using an asymmetrical-switch task such as the Stroop task in which one task set (e.g., word naming) is dominant over the other non-dominant task set (e.g., color naming).…”

“…The ability to successfully maintain and respond to changing task demands has been suggested to be a distinct executive process that relies upon an efficient top-down control system. This system has been argued to operate by alternating between activating one task set while simultaneously suppressing the other (Miyake, Friedman, Emerson, Witzki, Howerter, & Wager, 2000) and/or an updating process in which working memory transitions from a maintenance to an updating process in accord with the shifting task set (Mayr, 2001; Mayr, Kuhns, & Hubbard, 2014). …”

Switching between filter settings reduces the efficient utilization of visual working memory

“…Importantly, there is evidence from a number of studies that persisting activation from previous task sets interferes with responding to the actual stimulus, particularly when the stimulus has been processed before in the context of the other task (e.g., Waszak et al, 2003;Wylie & Allport, 2000). Interestingly, such costs are not restricted to switch trials, but often occur even on no-switch trials in the context of task-switch blocks (e.g., Mayr, Kuhns, & Hubbard, 2014;Rubin & Meiran, 2005). The present findings constitute an important extension of this pattern of results, because they indicate that in switching situations, interference from previous control settings affects not just the speed of responding to a given stimulus, but also the fidelity with which this stimulus is coded in WM.…”

“…A major source of such costs is stimulus-induced interference due to long-term memory representations of the task sets that are used within the same experimental context (e.g., Mayr, Kuhns, & Hubbard, 2014;Rubin & Meiran, 2005;Waszak, Hommel, & Allport, 2003). Similarly, in WM situations that require different filter settings, proactive interference from the currently irrelevant setting may make efficient filtering difficult, even when the currently relevant setting is fully implemented.…”

Structuring effect of tools conceptualized through Initial Goal Fixedness for work activity

“…This may refer to attentional control (Astle & Scerif, 2009) also named endogenous attention or endogenous attentional selectivity (Mayr et al, 2014;Theeuwes, 1991). This psycho-cognitive process supposes the subject is choosing where the attention will be focused and what will be left aside during the activity.…”