Recent studies have revealed that verbal representations play an important role in various task-switching situations. This study examined whether verbal representations contribute to the actual switching process using random task cueing with two cues per task. This procedure allowed us to produce a trial in which the cue switched, but the task repeated, thereby separating the cue-switching process from the actual task-switching process. Participants performed colour or shape judgements that were initiated by an arbitrary symbol cue (Experiments 1 and 2) or a kanji cue (Experiment 3) under control, articulatory-suppression, and foot-tapping conditions. In Experiments 1 and 2 with the arbitrary cues, articulatory suppression impaired performance in only the cue-switch condition. In Experiment 3, in which a kanji cue indicated the upcoming task name, articulatory suppression did not have any effects. These results suggest that the involvement of verbal representations in random task cueing is based on the cue-switching process rather than on the task-switching process.
AllportA.StylesE.A.HsiehS.Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks.Attention and Performance XV, UmiltaC.MoscovitchM. (1994). MIT PressCambridge, MA421–452.
2.
AltmannE.M. (2006). Task switching is not cue switching.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 61016–1022.
3.
ArringtonC.M.LoganG.D.SchneiderD.W. (2007). Separating cue encoding from target processing in the explicit task-cueing procedure: Are there “true” task switch effects?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 33, 3484–502.
4.
BaddeleyA.ChincottaD.AdlamA. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: Evidence from task switching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 4641–657.
5.
BryckR.L.MayrU. (2005). On the role of verbalization during task set selection: Switching or serial order control?.Memory & Cognition, 33, 4611–623.
6.
EmersonM.J.MiyakeA. (2003). The role of inner speech in task switching: A dual-task investigation.Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 1148–168.
7.
ForstmannB.U.BrassM.KochI. (2007). Methodological and empirical issues when dissociating cue-related from task-related processes in the explicit task-cueing procedure.Psychological Research, 71, 4393–400.
8.
GrangeJ.A.HoughtonG. (2010). Cue switch costs in task-switching: Cue priming or control processes?.Psychological Research, 74, 481–490.
9.
JersildA.T. (1927). Mental set and shift.Archives of Psychology, 89, 5–83.
10.
KarbachJ.KrayJ. (2007). Developmental changes in switching between mental task sets: The influence of verbal labeling in childhood.Journal of Cognition and Development, 8, 2205–236.
11.
KrayJ.EberJ.KarbachJ. (2008). Verbal self-instructions in task switching: A compensatory tool for action-control deficits in childhood and old age?.Developmental Science, 11, 2223–236.
12.
KrayJ.EberJ.LindenbergerU. (2004). Age differences in executive functioning across the lifespan: The role of verbalization in task preparation.Acta Psychologica, 115, 2–3143–165.
13.
LoganG.D.BundesenC. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cueing procedure?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 3575–599.
14.
LoganG.D.BundesenC. (2004). Very clever homunculus: Compound stimulus strategies for the explicit task-cueing procedure.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 5832–840.
15.
LoganG.D.SchneiderD.W. (2006). Interpreting instructional cues in task switching procedures: The role of mediator retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 32, 2347–363.
16.
LoganG.D.SchneiderD.W.BundesenC. (2007). Still clever after all these years: Searching for the homunculus in explicitly cued task switching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 4978–994.
17.
LuriaA.R.The development of the regulatory role of speech.The role of speech in the regulation of normal and abnormal behavior, TizarsJ. (1961). LiverightNew York, NY50–96.
18.
MayrU. (2006). What matters in the cued task-switching paradigm: Tasks or cues?.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 5794–799.
19.
MayrU. (2010). The surface structure and the deep structure of sequential control: What can we learn from task span procedure?.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 5693–698.
20.
MayrU.KlieglR. (2000). Task-set switching and long-term memory retrieval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 26, 51124–1140.
21.
MayrU.KlieglR. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 29, 3362–372.
22.
MeiranN. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 22, 61423–1442.
23.
MiyakeA.EmersonM.J.PadillaF.AhnJ.C. (2004). Inner speech as a retrieval aid for task goals: The effects of cue type and articulatory suppression in the random task cueing paradigm.Acta Psychologica, 115, 2–3123–142.
24.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(3), 134–140.
25.
MonsellS.MizonG.A. (2006). Can the task-cueing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 3493–516.
26.
MoritaA.SaitoS. (2007). The homophone effect in semantic access tasks using Kanji words: Its relation to the articulatory suppression effect.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 581–600.
27.
RogersR.D.MonsellS. (1995). Cost of a predictable switch between simple cognition tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 2207–231.
28.
SaekiE.SaitoS. (2004a). Effect of articulatory suppression on task-switching performance: Implications for models of working memory.Memory, 12, 3257–271.
29.
SaekiE.SaitoS. (2004b). The role of the phonological loop in task switching performance: The effect of articulatory suppression in the alternating runs paradigm.Psychologia, 47, 135–43.
30.
SaekiE.SaitoS. (2009). Verbal representation in task order control: An examination with transition and task cues in random task switching.Memory & Cognition, 37, 71040–1050.
31.
SaekiE.SaitoS.KawaguchiJ. (2006). Effects of response–stimulus interval manipulation and articulatory suppression on task switching.Memory, 14, 8965–976.
32.
SchneiderD.W.LoganG.D. (2011). Task-switching performance with 1:1 and 2:1 cue-task mappings: Not so different after all.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 37, 2405–415.
33.
SpectorA.BiedermanI. (1976). Mental set and mental shift revisited.American Journal of Psychology, 89, 4669–679.
34.
VygotskyL.S. (1962). Thought and language, MIT PressCambridge, MA (Original work published 1934).
