Task switching is not cue switching

Altmann, Erik M. · 2006 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.3758/bf03213918

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 challenges the "reduction hypothesis," which posits that task switching is cognitively equivalent to cue switching. Recent models, specifically the compound-cue model, suggest that task-switch costs arise primarily from the need to encode new cues rather than from reconfiguring cognitive control processes. Altmann (2006) tests this hypothesis by addressing three questions: whether cue switching accounts for all task-switching variance, whether the compound-cue model generalizes to standard experimental designs, and whether cue-switching procedures preserve standard task-switching metrics. The experiment employed a between-participants design with 30 undergraduates divided into two groups: a 1:1 cue-task mapping condition (standard explicit cuing) and a 2:1 mapping condition (cue switching, where two cues mapped to each task). Participants judged the height or width of rectangles based on preceding cues. Trials were paired; the cue for a pair appeared before Trial 1 and disappeared after the response, leaving Trial 2 uncued. This design allowed for the isolation of task-switch costs from cue-switch costs on Trial 2. The cue-stimulus interval (CSI) was manipulated (100 ms or 900 ms) to test predictions of the compound-cue model regarding preparation effects. Results indicated that task switching does not reduce to cue switching. On Trial 2, where cue switching was impossible, robust task-switch costs remained in latency, demonstrating that switching tasks involves processes beyond cue encoding. Furthermore, the compound-cue model, which predicts a pervasive interaction between CSI and task transition, fit the data well in the 2:1 condition but failed in the 1:1 condition. In the 1:1 condition, the model overpredicted the CSI interaction and produced incoherent parameter estimates, such as a base response time exceeding observed Trial 2 latencies. Additionally, the 2:1 mapping condition produced significantly larger task-switch costs than the 1:1 condition, suggesting that the cue-switching procedure alters the cognitive demands of the task rather than simply isolating cue-related components. The findings imply that the reduction hypothesis is incorrect. Task switching involves distinct cognitive control processes that are not captured by cue-switching models. The study highlights that cue-switching procedures may introduce additional complexity or alter the nature of task-set reconfiguration, making them poor proxies for standard task-switching phenomena. Consequently, models of cognitive control must account for processes specific to task reconfiguration, independent of cue encoding.

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