The role of external cues for endogenous advance reconfiguration in task switching

Koch, Iring · 2003 · Crossref

DOI: 10.3758/bf03196511

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 the mechanisms underlying task-set switching, specifically examining the role of external versus internal cues in advance cognitive reconfiguration. While most task-switching research relies on cuing paradigms where external signals indicate the upcoming task, this work addresses the less understood process of "endogenous" reconfiguration triggered solely by internal memory cues. The research aims to determine whether purely memory-based preparation functions similarly to externally cued preparation and to explain why incidental learning of task sequences often fails to reduce shift costs. The experiment employed a variant of the alternating-runs paradigm, where participants performed two numerical judgment tasks (odd/even vs. greater/smaller than 5) in a predictable AABB sequence. Thirty-two participants were divided into two groups: a "no-cue" group, which relied entirely on internal memory of the sequence, and a "cue" group, which received an additional redundant external cue (the shape of the stimulus frame changed to indicate the next task). The response–stimulus interval (RSI), serving as preparation time, was manipulated between short (200 msec) and long (1,000 msec) durations. The study measured reaction times (RTs) and error rates to assess shift costs, defined as the performance difference between task-switch and task-repeat trials. Results demonstrated a significant three-way interaction between group, RSI, and trial type. In the cue group, prolonging the RSI substantially reduced shift costs (a 140-msec reduction), indicating effective advance reconfiguration facilitated by external cues. In contrast, the no-cue group showed minimal benefit from increased preparation time, with shift costs reducing by only 18 msec, a difference that was not statistically significant. Error rate analyses confirmed that the no-cue group did not struggle with task identification, ruling out confusion as a cause for the lack of preparation benefit. Instead, the data suggest that while internal cues allow for task selection, they are inefficient at triggering the retrieval of specific stimulus–response rules prior to stimulus onset. The findings imply that external cues are superior to internal cues for advance task preparation because they more effectively facilitate the retrieval of task-specific rules. This distinction explains why incidental sequence learning, which relies on internal cues, typically fails to eliminate shift costs. The study concludes that while internal cues can select the relevant task goal, they do not sufficiently support the preparatory retrieval of execution rules. Consequently, a portion of shift costs remains "residual" even with long preparation times, likely due to stimulus-based interference that cannot be resolved in advance. This highlights a fundamental asymmetry in how internal and external information contributes to cognitive control during task switching.

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