Working Memory and Action Control: Evidence From Task Switching

Baddeley, Alan; Chincotta, Dino; Adlam, Anna

doi:10.1037/e501882009-758

Cited by 152 publications

(252 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

224

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Baddeley et al (2001) demonstrated that loading WM with an additional task, completely different from the adding/subtracting tasks that participants were required to perform, interfered with performance in mixed blocks but not in single-task blocks. However, this result was valid only when the additional task was one that occupied the phonological loop subsystem.…”

Section: The Wm-load Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 97%

On the Origins of the Task Mixing Cost in the Cuing Task-Switching Paradigm.

Rubin¹,

Meiran²

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

252

314

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poorer performance in conditions involving task repetition within blocks of mixed tasks relative to task repetition within blocks of single task is called mixing cost (MC). In 2 experiments exploring 2 hypotheses regarding the origins of MC, participants either switched between cued shape and color tasks, or they performed them as single tasks. Experiment 1 supported the hypothesis that mixed-tasks trials require the resolution of task ambiguity by showing that MC existed only with ambiguous stimuli that afforded both tasks and not with unambiguous stimuli affording only 1 task. Experiment 2 failed to support the hypothesis that holding multiple task sets in working memory (WM) generates MC by showing that systematic manipulation of the number of stimulus-response rules in WM did not affect MC. The results emphasize the role of competition management between task sets during task control.Keywords: task switching, switching cost, mixing cost, task ambiguity, working memory One of the prominent questions in psychological research concerns behavior control. Whereas the behaviorists' tradition has ascribed most behavioral control to the environment, recent cognitive theorists have emphasized more internally driven, top-down forms of control. This idea of cognitive control involves concepts such as goal-directed behavior, initiation, executive control processes, and so forth. A key concept in the context of top-down control is the task-set. According to Rogers and Monsell (1995), the control of task-sets is manifested in the ability to configure processing resources to perform one rather than another of the many cognitive tasks that a stimulus affords.A common paradigm for studying task-set control is the taskswitching paradigm. In the original version of this paradigm, performance in blocks of trials in which a task is repeated is compared with performance in blocks in which the participants switch between two different tasks (Allport, Styles, & Hsieh, 1994;Jersild, 1927;Spector & Biederman, 1976). More recent studies have used a modified paradigm that makes it possible to contrast task-switch trials and task-repetition trials within blocks of mixed tasks (e.g., De Jong, 1995bGoschke, 2000;Mayr & Keele, 2000;Meiran, 1996;Rogers & Monsell, 1995). In most cases, switching tasks is accompanied by a robust performance cost, seen both in reaction time (RT) and error rates, indicating switch cost.A recent conceptualization that incorporates knowledge from the variety of task-switching paradigms elaborates and sharpens the understanding of the switch mechanisms by differentiating between several cost components. The difference in performance between switch and repetition trials (in mixed-tasks blocks) is termed switching cost, and the difference between repetition trials (in mixed-tasks blocks) and single-task trials (in pure blocks) is termed mixing cost (

show abstract

Section: The Wm-load Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 97%

On the Origins of the Task Mixing Cost in the Cuing Task-Switching Paradigm.

Rubin¹,

Meiran²

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

252

314

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Baddeley and colleagues have argued that random sequence generation involves executive control processes (Baddeley, 1996;Baddeley, Chincotta, & Adlam, 2001;Baddeley, Emslie, Kolodny, & Duncan, 1998) that must overcome habitual or more easily retrieved responses. They used random sequence generation as a secondary task to track the executive control demands of a primary task.…”

Section: Task Choice As a Top-down Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voluntary Task Switching: Chasing the Elusive Homunculus.

Arrington¹,

Logan²

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

187

337

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the voluntary task switching procedure, subjects choose the task to perform on a series of bivalent stimuli, requiring top-down control of task switching. Experiments 1-3 contrasted voluntary task switching and explicit task cuing. Choice behavior showed small, inconsistent effects of external stimulus characteristics, supporting the assumption of top-down control of task choice. Switch costs were smaller when subjects chose to switch tasks than when instructed by an external cue. Experiments 4 -6 separated choice costs from switch costs. These findings support models of task switching that incorporate top-down processes in accounts of switch costs. The degree to which task switching procedures capture top-down versus bottom-up processes may depend on the extent of environmental support provided by the procedure.

show abstract

“…If performance of the primary task relies on self-directed speech, it should be significantly impaired by articulatory suppression. The performance of several cognitive tasks is vulnerable to articulatory suppression in children and adults, including tasks tapping spatial working memory (Ang & Lee, 2008), and task-switching (Whitehouse, Maybery, & Durkin, 2006) in children, and Running head: ROLES OF PRIVATE AND INNER SPEECH IN PLANNING tasks tapping spatial reasoning (Kim, 2002), cognitive flexibility (Baldo et al, 2005) and task-switching performance (Baddeley, Chincotta, & Adlam, 2001) in adults.…”

Section: Running Head: Roles Of Private and Inner Speech In Planningmentioning

confidence: 99%

The roles of private speech and inner speech in planning during middle childhood: Evidence from a dual task paradigm

Lidstone

Meins

Fernyhough

2010

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Publisher's copyright statement: NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Journal of experimental child psychology. Additional information:Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

show abstract

Working Memory and Action Control: Evidence From Task Switching

Cited by 152 publications

References 0 publications

On the Origins of the Task Mixing Cost in the Cuing Task-Switching Paradigm.

On the Origins of the Task Mixing Cost in the Cuing Task-Switching Paradigm.

Voluntary Task Switching: Chasing the Elusive Homunculus.

The roles of private speech and inner speech in planning during middle childhood: Evidence from a dual task paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About