That's What Task Sets Are For: Shielding Against Irrelevant Information

Overview

Journal Psychol Res

Specialty Psychology

Date 2007 Dec 7

PMID 18057961

Citations 37

Authors

Gesine Dreisbach

Hilde Haider

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Goal-directed behavior requires the cognitive system to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information. The authors show that task sets help to shield the system from irrelevant information. Participants had to respond to eight different colored word stimuli under different instruction conditions. They either had to learn the stimulus-response mappings (SR condition), to use one task set (1 TS condition) or to use two different task sets (2 TS condition). In the 2 TS and the SR conditions, participants showed response repetition effects (interaction of color repetition x response repetition), indicating that participants processed the color of the words. Importantly, the 1 TS condition did not show such an interaction. Overall, the results provide evidence for the shielding function of task sets. This benefit turns into costs in classical task switching paradigms. From this perspective, switch costs can be interpreted as the consequence of successful shielding on the previous task.

Citing Articles

The role of selective attention in implicit learning: evidence for a contextual cueing effect of task-irrelevant features.

Tavera F, Haider H Psychol Res. 2024; 89(1):15.

PMID: 39540996 PMC: 11564302. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-024-02033-9.

Inhibition of cued but not executed task sets depends on cue-task compatibility and practice.

Berger A, Koch I, Kiefer M Psychol Res. 2024; 88(7):2036-2058.

PMID: 39080024 PMC: 11450066. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-024-02013-z.

Proactive Versus Reactive Control Strategies Differentially Mediate Alcohol Drinking in Male Wistars and P Rats.

Morningstar M, Timme N, Ma B, Cornwell E, Galbari T, Lapish C eNeuro. 2024; 11(3).

PMID: 38423790 PMC: 10972740. DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0385-23.2024.

Dynamics of task preparation processes revealed by effect course analysis on response times and error rates.

Berger A, Kunde W, Kiefer M Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):4249.

PMID: 38378818 PMC: 10879509. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-54823-1.

Instruction effects on randomness in sequence generation.

Guseva M, Bogler C, Allefeld C, Haynes J Front Psychol. 2023; 14:1113654.

PMID: 37034908 PMC: 10075230. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1113654.

References

Hubner R, Druey M . Response execution, selection, or activation: what is sufficient for response-related repetition effects under task shifting?. Psychol Res. 2005; 70(4):245-61. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-005-0219-8. View

Dreisbach G, Haider H . Preparatory adjustment of cognitive control in the task switching paradigm. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006; 13(2):334-8. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193853. View

Koch I, Schuch S . The costs of changing the representation of action: response repetition and response-response compatibility in dual tasks. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2004; 30(3):566-82. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.30.3.566. View

Dreisbach G, Goschke T, Haider H . The role of task rules and stimulus-response mappings in the task switching paradigm. Psychol Res. 2006; 71(4):383-92. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-005-0041-3. View

Kleinsorge T . Response repetition benefits and costs. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2000; 103(3):295-310. DOI: 10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00047-5. View

Wenke D, Frensch P . The influence of task instruction on action coding: constraint setting or direct coding?. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005; 31(4):803-19. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.4.803. View

Meiran N, Chorev Z, Sapir A . Component processes in task switching. Cogn Psychol. 2000; 41(3):211-53. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.2000.0736. View

Dreisbach G, Goschke T, Haider H . Implicit task sets in task switching?. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006; 32(6):1221-33. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.32.6.1221. View

Monsell S . Task switching. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003; 7(3):134-140. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(03)00028-7. View

10.

Ansorge U, Neumann O . Intentions determine the effect of invisible metacontrast-masked primes: evidence for top-down contingencies in a peripheral cuing task. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005; 31(4):762-77. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.4.762. View

11.

Loftus G, Masson M . Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 1(4):476-90. DOI: 10.3758/BF03210951. View

12.

Dreisbach G, Haider H, Kluwe R . Preparatory processes in the task-switching paradigm: evidence from the use of probability cues. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002; 28(3):468-83. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.28.3.468. View

13.

Wylie G, Allport A . Task switching and the measurement of "switch costs". Psychol Res. 2000; 63(3-4):212-33. DOI: 10.1007/s004269900003. View

14.

Mayr U, Keele S . Changing internal constraints on action: the role of backward inhibition. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000; 129(1):4-26. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.129.1.4. View

15.

Hommel B, Musseler J, Aschersleben G, Prinz W . The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behav Brain Sci. 2002; 24(5):849-78; discussion 878-937. DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x01000103. View

16.

de Fockert J, Rees G, Frith C, Lavie N . The role of working memory in visual selective attention. Science. 2001; 291(5509):1803-6. DOI: 10.1126/science.1056496. View

17.

Notebaert W, Soetens E . The influence of irrelevant stimulus changes on stimulus and response repetition effects. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2003; 112(2):143-56. DOI: 10.1016/s0001-6918(02)00080-x. View

18.

Hubner R, Druey M . Multiple response codes play specific roles in response selection and inhibition under task switching. Psychol Res. 2007; 72(4):415-24. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-007-0118-2. View

19.

Mayr U, Kliegl R . Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2003; 29(3):362-72. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.3.362. View