Can time-based decay explain temporal distinctiveness effects in task switching?

References

• Allport, A., Styles, E., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Ulmita & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Consciousness and nonconscious information processing: Attention and performance XV (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Altmann, E. M. (2005). Repetition priming in task switching: Do the benefits dissipate? Psychonomic Bul letin & Review, 12, 535–540. doi: 10.3758/BF03193801
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altmann, E. M. (2009). Evidence for temporal decay in short-term episodic memory. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13, 279. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altmann, E. M., & Gray, W. D. (2008). An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. Psychological Review, 115, 602–639. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.115.3.602
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altmann, E. M., & Shunn, C. D. (2012). Decay versus interference: A new look at an old interaction. Psychological Science, 23, 1435–1437. doi: 10.1177/0956797612446027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt, M. J., IJzerman, H., Dijksterhuis, A., Farach, F., Geller, J., Giner-Sorolla, R., … van ’t Veer, A. (2014). The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217–224. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, G. D. A., Neath, I., & Chater, N. (2007). A temporal ratio model of memory. Psychological Review, 114, 539–576. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.539
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7–29. doi: 10.1177/0956797613504966
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2010). Computational models as aids to better reasoning in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 329–335. doi: 10.1177/0963721410386677
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gade, M., & Koch, I. (2005). Linking inhibition to activation in the control of task sequences. Psychonomic Bul letin & Review, 12, 530–534. doi: 10.3758/BF03193800
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (2009). Temporal cue-target overlap is not essential for backward inhibition in task switching. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 2069–2080. doi: 10.1080/17470210802696096
   Google Scholar
• Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (Eds.). (2014a). Task switching and cognitive control. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grange, J. A., & Houghton, G. (2014b). Models of cognitive control in task switching. In J. A. Grange & G. Houghton (Eds.), Task switching and cognitive control (pp. 160–199). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grange, J. A., Juvina, I., & Houghton, G. (2013). On costs and benefits of n − 2 repetitions in task switching: Towards a behavioural marker of cognitive inhibition. Psychological Research, 77, 211–222. doi: 10.1007/s00426-012-0421-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horoufchin, H., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2011a). The dissipating task-repetition benefit in cued task switching: Task-set decay or temporal distinctiveness? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 455–472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horoufchin, H., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2011b). Temporal distinctiveness and repetition benefits in task switching: Disentangling stimulus-related and response-related contributions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 434–446. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2010.496857
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874. doi: 10.1037/a0019842
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch, I., & Lawo, V. (2014). Exploring temporal dissipation of attention settings in auditory task switching. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 76, 73–80. doi: 10.3758/s13414-013-0571-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., & Farrell, S. (2010). Computational modeling in cognition: Principles and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Brown, G. D. A. (2009a). No temporal decay in verbal short-term memory. Trends in Cognitive Science, 13, 120–126. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.12.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K., & Brown, G. D. A. (2009b). Response to Altmann: Adaptive forgetting by decay or removal of STM contents? Trends in Cognitive Science, 13, 280–281. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bul letin & Review, 1, 476–490. doi: 10.3758/BF03210951
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.95.4.492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 575–599.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.393
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 362–372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meiran, N. (2005). Task rule-congruency and Simon-like effects in switching between spatial tasks. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 58, 1023–1041. doi: 10.1080/02724980443000421
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211–253. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2000.0736
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neath, I., & Brown, G. D. A. (2012). Arguments against memory trace decay: A SIMPLE account of Baddeley & Scott. Frontiers in Cognition, 3:35. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Open Science Collaboration. (2012). An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 657–670. doi: 10.1177/1745691612462588
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricker, T. J., Spiegel, L. R., & Cowan, N. (in press). Time-based loss in visual short-term memory is from trace decay, not temporal distinctiveness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.
   Google Scholar
• Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2005). Modeling task switching without switching tasks: A short- term priming account of explicitly cued performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 343–367. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.134.3.343
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sohn, M.-H., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Task preparation and task repetition: Two-component model of task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 764–778. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.764
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfig-uration and interference. Psychological Bul letin, 136, 601–626. doi: 10.1037/a0019791
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2009). Methodological and empirical developments for the Ratcliff diffusion model of response times and accuracy. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21, 641–671. doi: 10.1080/09541440802205067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar