Voluntary Task Switching Under Load: Contribution of Top-down and Bottom-up Factors in Goal-directed Behavior

Overview

Journal Psychon Bull Rev

Specialty Psychology

Date 2010 Jun 17

PMID 20551363

Citations 23

Authors

Jelle Demanet

Frederick Verbruggen

Baptist Liefooghe

Andre Vandierendonck

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The present study investigated the relative contribution of bottom-up and top-down control to task selection in the voluntary task-switching (VTS) procedure. In order to manipulate the efficiency of top-down control, a concurrent working memory load was imposed during VTS. In three experiments, bottom-up factors, such as stimulus repetitions, repetition of irrelevant information, and stimulus-task associations, were introduced in order to investigate their influence on task selection. We observed that the tendency to repeat tasks was stronger under load, suggesting that top-down control counteracts the automatic tendency to repeat tasks. The results also indicated that task selection can be guided by several elements in the environment, but that only the influence of stimulus repetitions depends on the efficiency of top-down control. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed within the interplay between top-down and bottom-up control that underlies the voluntary selection of tasks.

Citing Articles

Voluntary task switching is affected by modality compatibility and preparation.

Friedgen E, Koch I, Poljac E, Liefooghe B, Stephan D Mem Cognit. 2024; 52(5):1195-1209.

PMID: 38388779 PMC: 11315712. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-024-01536-5.

Reactive and proactive control processes in voluntary task choice.

Mittelstadt V, Mackenzie I, Braun D, Arrington C Mem Cognit. 2023; 52(2):417-429.

PMID: 37798607 PMC: 10896955. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-023-01470-y.

The Role of Effector-Specific Task Representations in Voluntary Task Switching.

Mittelstadt V, Leuthold H, Mackenzie I, Dykstra T, Hazeltine E J Cogn. 2023; 6(1):9.

PMID: 36698784 PMC: 9838227. DOI: 10.5334/joc.255.

Item-Specificity and Intention in Episodic Memory.

Pfeuffer C J Cogn. 2020; 3(1):24.

PMID: 32964183 PMC: 7485405. DOI: 10.5334/joc.110.

Modality compatibility biases voluntary choice of response modality in task switching.

Fintor E, Poljac E, Stephan D, Koch I Psychol Res. 2018; 84(2):380-388.

PMID: 29926170 DOI: 10.1007/s00426-018-1040-5.

References

Mattler U . Priming of mental operations by masked stimuli. Percept Psychophys. 2003; 65(2):167-87. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194793. View

Baddeley A . Working memory. Science. 1992; 255(5044):556-9. DOI: 10.1126/science.1736359. View

Liefooghe B, Demanet J, Vandierendonck A . Is advance reconfiguration in voluntary task switching affected by the design employed?. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009; 62(5):850-7. DOI: 10.1080/17470210802570994. View

Lien M, Ruthruff E . Inhibition of task set: converging evidence from task choice in the voluntary task-switching paradigm. Psychon Bull Rev. 2008; 15(6):1111-6. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.15.6.1111. View

Stevens M, Lammertyn J, Verbruggen F, Vandierendonck A . Tscope: A C library for programming cognitive experiments on the MS windows platform. Behav Res Methods. 2006; 38(2):280-6. DOI: 10.3758/bf03192779. View

Miller E, Cohen J . An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2001; 24:167-202. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167. View

Arrington C . The effect of stimulus availability on task choice in voluntary task switching. Mem Cognit. 2008; 36(5):991-7. DOI: 10.3758/mc.36.5.991. View

Arrington C, Logan G . Voluntary task switching: chasing the elusive homunculus. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2005; 31(4):683-702. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.4.683. View

Liefooghe B, Vandierendonck A, Muyllaert I, Verbruggen F, Vanneste W . The phonological loop in task alternation and task repetition. Memory. 2005; 13(5):550-60. DOI: 10.1080/09658210444000250. View

10.

Waszak F, Hommel B, Allport A . Task-switching and long-term priming: role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cogn Psychol. 2003; 46(4):361-413. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0285(02)00520-0. View

11.

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

12.

Verbruggen F, Logan G . Automatic and controlled response inhibition: associative learning in the go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2008; 137(4):649-72. PMC: 2597400. DOI: 10.1037/a0013170. View

13.

Lavie N . Distracted and confused?: selective attention under load. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005; 9(2):75-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004. View

14.

Logan G, Gordon R . Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychol Rev. 2001; 108(2):393-434. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.393. View

15.

Arrington C, Logan G . Episodic and semantic components of the compound-stimulus strategy in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Mem Cognit. 2005; 32(6):965-78. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196874. View

16.

Logan G . What it costs to implement a plan: plan-level and task-level contributions to switch costs. Mem Cognit. 2007; 35(4):591-602. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193297. View

17.

Mayr U, Bryck R . Outsourcing control to the environment: effects of stimulus/response locations on task selection. Psychol Res. 2005; 71(1):107-16. DOI: 10.1007/s00426-005-0039-x. View

18.

Verbruggen F, Logan G . Automaticity of cognitive control: goal priming in response-inhibition paradigms. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009; 35(5):1381-8. DOI: 10.1037/a0016645. View

19.

Mayr U, Bell T . On how to be unpredictable: evidence from the voluntary task-switching paradigm. Psychol Sci. 2006; 17(9):774-80. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01781.x. View