Modality-specific preparatory influences on the flexibility of cognitive control in task switching

References

• Adam, J. J., BovendEerdt, T. J., Smulders, F. T., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2014). Strategic flexibility in response preparation: Effects of cue validity on reaction time and pupil dilation. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26, 166–177. doi:10.1080/20445911.2014.883399
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allport, A., & Wylie, G. (2000). Selection-for-action in competing (Stroop) tasks: “Task-switching”, stimulus–response bindings, and negative priming. In S. Monsell & J. S. Driver (Eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes (pp. 35–70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A., Chincotta, D., & Adlam, A. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: Evidence from task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 641–657. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.641
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Declerck, M., Stephan, D. N., Koch, I., & Philipp, A. M. (2015). The other modality: Auditory stimuli in language switching. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27, 685–691. doi:10.1080/20445911.2015.1026265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dux, P. E., Ivanoff, J., Asplund, C. L., & Marois, R. (2006). Isolation of a central bottleneck of information processing with time-resolved fMRI. Neuron, 52, 1109–1120. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2006.11.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emerson, M. J., & Miyake, A. (2003). The role of inner speech in task switching: A dual-task investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 148–168. doi:10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00511-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goschke, T. (2000). Intentional reconfiguration and involuntary persistence in task set switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 331–355). Cambridge, MA: MIT 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
• Hirsch, P., Schwarzkopp, T., Declerck, M., Reese, S., & Koch, I. (2016). Age-related differences in task switching and task preparation: Exploring the role of task-set competition. Acta Psychologica, 170, 66–73. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.06.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horoufchin, H., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2011). 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. doi:10.1037/a0020557
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switchinga review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 849–874. doi:10.1037/a0019842
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Koch, I., Gade, M., Schuch, S., & Philipp, A. M. (2010). The role of inhibition in task switching: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 1–14. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.1.1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koch, I., Lawo, V., Fels, J., & Vorländer, M. (2011). Switching in the cocktail partyexploring intentional control of auditory selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 1140–1147. doi:10.1037/a0022189
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreutzfeldt, M., Stephan, D. N., Sturm, W., Willmes, K., & Koch, I. (2015). The role of crossmodal competition and dimensional overlap in crossmodal attention switching. Acta Psychologica, 155, 67–76. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.12.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreutzfeldt, M., Stephan, D. N., Willmes, K., & Koch, I. (2016). Shifts in target modality cause attentional reset: Evidence from sequential modulation of crossmodal congruency effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1466–1473. doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1001-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurent, L., Millot, J. L., Andrieu, P., Camos, V., Floccia, C., & Mathy, F. (2016). Inner speech sustains predictable task switching: Direct evidence in adults. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28, 585–592. doi:10.1080/20445911.2016.1164173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawo, V., Philipp, A. M., Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2012). The role of task preparation and task inhibition in age-related task-switching deficits. Psychology and Aging, 27, 1130–1137. doi:10.1037/a0027455
   PubMed 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. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.3.575
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan, G. D., & Schneider, D. (2006). Interpreting instructional cues in task switching procedures: The role of mediator retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 347–363. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.3.347
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010a). Switching attention between modalitiesfurther evidence for visual dominance. Psychological Research, 74, 255–267. doi:10.1007/s00426-009-0246-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010b). The role of preparation and cue-modality in crossmodal task switching. Acta Psychologica, 134, 318–322. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.03.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukas, S., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2014). Crossmodal attention switching: Auditory dominance in temporal discrimination tasks. Acta Psychologica, 153, 139–146. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.10.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayr, U. (2001). Age differences in the selection of mental sets: The role of inhibition, stimulus ambiguity, and response-set overlap. Psychology and Aging, 16, 96–109. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.16.1.96
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4–26. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.129.1.4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meiran, N. (2000). Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychological Research, 63, 234–249. doi:10.1007/s004269900004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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
• Meiran, N., & Kessler, Y. (2008). The task rule congruency effect in task switching reflects activated long-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 137–157. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.34.1.137
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miyake, A., Emerson, M. J., Padilla, F., & Ahn, J. C. (2004). Inner speech as a retrieval aid for task goals: The effects of cue type and articulatory suppression in the random task cuing paradigm. Acta Psychologica, 115, 123–142. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.12.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–140. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.2.207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, O., & Meiran, N. (2005). On the origins of the task mixing cost in the cuing task-switching paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 1477–1491. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1477
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763–797. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.763
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 92–105. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.29.1.92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spagna, A., Mackie, M., & Fan, J. (2015). Supramodal executive control of attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 65. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00065
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamber-Rosenau, B. J., Dux, P. E., Tombu, M. N., Asplund, C. L., & Marois, R. (2013). Amodal processing in human prefrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 11573–11587. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4601-12.2013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandierendonck, A., Liefooghe, B., & Verbruggen, F. (2010). Task switching: Interplay of reconfiguration and interference control. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 601–626. doi:10.1037/a0031672
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vant Wout, F., Lavric, A., & Monsell, S. (2013). Are stimulus-response rules represented phonologically for task-set preparation and maintenance? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39, 1538–1551. doi:10.1037/a0019791
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar