Task-switch costs subsequent to cue-only trials

ABSTRACT

There is abundant evidence that there is a performance cost associated with switching between tasks. This “switch cost” has been postulated to be driven by task performance on the preceding trial, but recent research challenges any necessary role of previous task performance in driving the cost. Across three experiments, we investigated whether it is difficult to switch from a task that was prepared but never performed. We replicated the finding of a switch cost following cue-only trials (involving no task performance) whilst controlling for a potential cue-switching confound. This cost was larger than that following completed trials when preparation interval was short (300 ms), and it reduced significantly with a longer preparation interval (1000 ms) on the current trial. We also found that preparing only to attend to a particular visual dimension (colour or shape) was sufficient to drive a significant subsequent switch cost, which appeared to be residual in nature; we speculate that this cost may reflect the persistence of unfulfilled task intentions and/or a strategic slowing when consecutive intentions conflict.

KEYWORDS:

• Task switching
• Subsequent switch cost
• Preparation
• Stimulus–response mappings

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Fiona Carr, Carmen Horne, and Brigitta Toth for assistance with data collection.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. In Experiment 1b there was in fact an overall switch cost in errors, which was not significantly altered according to whether the preceding trial was a go or a no-go; it is not clear whether the cost itself would have been significant specifically on trials preceded by a no-go trial.

2. Strictly speaking, these might better be termed “feature–response mappings” as it was the route from feature (e.g. blue), rather than stimulus (e.g. blue circle), that participants were instructed to prepare; however, we use the term “stimulus–response mappings” as it is much more widely used in the literature to describe the set of links between target stimuli and responses.

3. We thank reviewer Sander Los for this suggestion

4. The reason for not including any cue-only trials with a 300-ms preparation interval was that upon piloting it was clear that the cue could not be interpreted in such a short time, and the subsequent trial became too difficult. In practice it seemed reasonable not to include such a condition because we were only interested in the subsequent effects of cue-only trials on which there had been sufficient time to prepare the cued task.

Additional information

Funding

The authors would like to thank the School of Psychology, University of Aberdeen, for contributing funding for participant payments.