Role of Working Memory in Task Switching

Vandierendonck, André · 2012 · Crossref

DOI: 10.5334/pb-52-2-3-229

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This paper addresses the inconsistent empirical findings regarding the relationship between working memory (WM) and task switching. While some studies demonstrate that taxing WM impairs task switching performance, others find no interaction between WM load and switching costs. The author aims to resolve these contradictions by proposing a specific cognitive architecture and applying it to two methodologies that yield opposing results: the task-span procedure (Logan, 2004) and the time-based resource sharing (TBRS) procedure (Liefooghe et al., 2008). The author presents a model of working memory consisting of two distinct subsystems: a declarative working memory (dWM) component for storing instantiated information and an executive working memory (eWM) module for storing task sets and execution rules. In this framework, task execution involves retrieving task names from long-term memory to instantiate goals in dWM, which then trigger the configuration of task sets in eWM. These task sets bias attention and processing toward relevant categorization and response mapping rules. The model posits that both subsystems suffer from decay and require active refreshing or binding mechanisms to maintain activation. The author applies this theoretical framework to analyze the task-span procedure, where participants memorize task names and apply them to targets, and the TBRS procedure, where task switching occurs during the retention interval of a serial memory task. The analysis reveals that the proposed model accounts for the contradictory findings by distinguishing between the demands placed on dWM and eWM. In the task-span procedure, the model suggests that the processes involved do not create a significant interference between memory maintenance and task execution, explaining Logan’s finding of no systematic difference between task span and memory span. Conversely, in the TBRS procedure, task switching consumes central attention resources required for refreshing decaying WM contents. Because switching incurs a cost that occupies attention longer than repetitions, it reduces the time available for refreshing memoranda, thereby impairing serial recall. This explains Liefooghe et al.’s finding that higher ratios of task switches lead to worse memory performance. The significance of this work lies in its support for the hypothesis that task switching relies on working memory, specifically by clarifying how different experimental paradigms tap into different components of the WM system. By distinguishing between declarative storage and executive control, the model provides a unified explanation for variable patterns in the literature. It suggests that the apparent lack of interaction in some studies does not negate the role of WM in task switching but rather reflects the specific resource demands of the task-switching paradigm used. This contributes to a more nuanced understanding of executive control processes and the functional architecture of working memory.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-25; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• task switching
• working memory