Timing of internal processes: Investigating introspection about the costs of task switching and memory search

Bratzke, Daniel; Bryce, Donna · 2022 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.3758/s13414-022-02510-6

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

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

Summary

This study investigates whether the timing mechanisms underlying introspective estimates of one’s own reaction times (IRTs) are the same as those used for timing external intervals. Previous research demonstrated a dissociation in concurrent temporal production tasks: memory search costs affected time production, while task-switching costs did not. The authors hypothesized that if IRTs relied on similar prospective timing mechanisms, a comparable dissociation would appear. Specifically, they predicted that IRTs would reflect switch costs but not memory search costs, as memory search was thought to interrupt temporal accumulation. The experiment involved 20 participants performing a task-switching paradigm with a memory search task and a digit classification task. Each trial began with the presentation of a memory set (two or six letters), followed by two sequential tasks. Participants provided speeded responses for both tasks and then estimated their reaction time for the second task (IRT2) using a visual analogue scale. The design manipulated task sequence (switch vs. repeat) and memory set size. Data were analyzed using ANOVAs on objective reaction times (RTs), IRTs, and error rates, as well as linear mixed-effects models to determine which variables predicted IRTs. Results showed that both objective RTs and IRTs were significantly affected by task switching and memory set size. Switch costs amounted to 76 ms for RTs and 45 ms for IRTs, while larger memory sets increased RTs by 81 ms and IRTs by 40 ms. Crucially, no dissociation was observed; unlike previous findings with concurrent temporal production, IRTs reflected both types of cognitive costs. Linear mixed-effects modeling revealed that objective RT was the primary predictor of IRTs, with task sequence and memory set size having negligible independent effects once RT was accounted for. This indicates that IRTs were strikingly accurate, trial-by-trial estimates of objective performance. The findings suggest that the timing mechanisms for IRTs differ from those used in concurrent temporal production tasks. While concurrent timing appears to be disrupted by memory search, introspective timing remains accurate and sensitive to both switching and search costs. The authors conclude that IRTs in this context are predominantly prospective (time-based) rather than retrospective, as they closely track objective RTs rather than relying solely on non-temporal cues like task difficulty. These results demonstrate that introspection about multitasking performance is not blind to the costs of task switching or memory search, challenging previous assumptions about the limitations of introspective awareness in sequential multitasking contexts.

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.

• time perception
• task switching