Rethinking volitional control over task choice in multitask environments: Use of a stimulus set selection strategy in voluntary task switching

Abstract

Under conditions of volitional control in multitask environments, subjects may engage in a variety of strategies to guide task selection. The current research examines whether subjects may sometimes use a top-down control strategy of selecting a task-irrelevant stimulus dimension, such as location, to guide task selection. We term this approach a stimulus set selection strategy. Using a voluntary task switching procedure, subjects voluntarily switched between categorizing letter and number stimuli that appeared in two, four, or eight possible target locations. Effects of stimulus availability, manipulated by varying the stimulus onset asynchrony between the two target stimuli, and location repetition were analyzed to assess the use of a stimulus set selection strategy. Considered across position condition, Experiment 1 showed effects of both stimulus availability and location repetition on task choice suggesting that only in the 2-position condition, where selection based on location always results in a target at the selected location, subjects may have been using a stimulus set selection strategy on some trials. Experiment 2 replicated and extended these findings in a visually more cluttered environment. These results indicate that, contrary to current models of task selection in voluntary task switching, the top-down control of task selection may occur in the absence of the formation of an intention to perform a particular task.

To stay or not to stay: The stability of choice perseveration in value-based decision making

“…Voluntary task switching is still associated with switch costs (Arrington & Logan, 2004), but the paradigm allows to investigate different research questions, for example, how long people will stick to one task before switching to the other task. In this context, introducing a temporal delay between two stimuli corresponding to different tasks (i.e., presenting one stimulus earlier than the other stimulus; SOA) has been shown to influence participants’ task decisions, such that they were more likely to select the task that corresponded to the first stimulus (Arrington, 2008; Arrington & Weaver, 2015). In a similar vein, Mittelstädt, Miller, and Kiesel (2018) used increasing SOAs to introduce increasing costs the longer participants repeated one task in a voluntary task switching design.…”

Balancing cognitive and environmental constraints when deciding to switch tasks: Exploring self-reported task-selection strategies in self-organised multitasking

“…The most typical finding of VTS studies is the repetition bias: Participants usually show a tendency to select the same task in trial n that they performed in trial n – 1 (e.g., Arrington & Logan, 2004; Jurczyk et al, 2019; Kessler et al, 2009). This repetition bias persists when using the common version of the VTS paradigm in which participants are instructed to randomly choose the tasks in each trial (e.g., Arrington & Logan, 2004; Arrington & Weaver, 2015; Demanet et al, 2010). The additional finding of switch costs (i.e., slower reaction times [RTs] and increased error rates when switching compared to repeating tasks) in these studies suggests that the cognitive costs that incurred when switching tasks are reflected in both task selection and task performance.…”

Scaling of the Parameters for Cost Balancing in Self- Organized Task Switching

“…While research on switch costs captures a unique aspect of everyday multitasking, it neglects important factors other than performance. For example, when multitasking, it is often not only critical how to perform multiple tasks in rapid succession, but also relevant to select what task to perform in the first place ( Arrington & Weaver, 2015 ; Braun & Arrington, 2018 ; Kiesel & Dignath, 2017 ; Dignath, et al, 2015 ; Schuch & Dignath, 2020 ). Indeed, a rich research tradition on decision making provides evidence that people consider different costs and benefits for their decisions (i.e., Basten et al, 2010 ; Kool et al, 2010 ; Simen et al, 2009 ) and recent theoretical work suggests that such utility-based decisions also take into account performance costs in multitasking ( Shenhav et al, 2013 , Musslick et al, 2015 ; Shenhav et al, 2016 ; see also Schuch, et al, 2019 ).…”

“…4 and 5 ; Mayr, & Bell, 2006 ). Moreover, Arrington ( 2008 ; see also Arrington & Weaver, 2015 ) showed that the voluntary task choice was influenced by stimulus availability. In two experiments participants had to decide between a letter (vowel/consonant) and a number (odd/even) judgment task.…”