Effects of response selection on the task repetition benefit in task switching

Koch, Iring; Philipp, Andrea M. · 2005 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.3758/bf03195329

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 cognitive mechanisms underlying the "residual shift cost" in task-switching paradigms, specifically examining whether this cost arises from persistent activation biases in response selection. While task preparation can reduce the performance penalty associated with switching tasks, a residual cost typically remains. The authors propose that this residual cost is driven by an activation bias of category-response (C-R) rules established during response selection in the preceding trial. To test this, the researchers manipulated response selection requirements using go/no-go and go/double-press methodologies across three experiments. In Experiment 1, participants performed magnitude and parity tasks on digits. One group encountered unpredictable no-go trials (requiring no response), while a control group performed only go trials. Results showed that residual shift cost disappeared in trials following no-go trials, as task-repetition reaction times increased to match switch-trial times. Comparing the two groups revealed that the introduction of no-go trials did not impair general task preparation strategies, confirming that the elimination of shift cost was due to the absence of response selection rather than a failure to prepare. Experiment 2 replaced no-go trials with double-press trials, requiring motor execution but not task-specific response selection. Here, a substantial residual shift cost persisted, indicating that response execution alone does not generate the activation bias; rather, the selection of a specific C-R rule against competing rules is the critical factor. Experiment 3 tested alternative explanations, such as the possibility that no-go trials are perceived as a distinct task or cause general inhibition. By introducing no-go trials into a single-task condition, the authors found no significant slowing of subsequent trials. This ruled out the hypothesis that no-go trials act as a different task or induce self-inhibition, supporting the conclusion that the effects observed in Experiments 1 and 2 are specific to the resolution of competition between C-R rules in a switching context. The findings demonstrate that a persisting activation bias of response rules plays a major role in task switching. The residual shift cost is not merely a failure of preparation or general interference but is specifically caused by the lingering activation of the C-R rule selected in the previous trial. When response selection is bypassed (as in no-go trials), this bias is not established, eliminating the benefit of task repetition and thereby removing the residual cost of switching. This clarifies the distinction between task preparation (activating the task goal) and response selection (applying specific rules), highlighting that the latter is crucial for the proactive interference observed in residual shift costs.

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