Task switching versus cue switching: Using transition cuing to disentangle sequential effects in task-switching performance.

Schneider, Darryl W.; Logan, Gordon D. · 2007 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.2.370

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 addresses methodological confounds in the measurement of task-switch costs, specifically the difficulty in dissociating the effects of cue transitions from task transitions. Previous methods, such as using one cue per task or transition cues with a single cue per transition, failed to fully disentangle these variables, often conflating cue-switching effects with higher-order task sequences (e.g., ABA sequences). Schneider and Logan aimed to resolve this by employing a transition-cuing procedure that utilizes two distinct cues for each transition type: "REPEAT" and "AGAIN" for task repetitions, and "SWITCH" and "CHANGE" for task switches. This design allows for a more complete factorial examination of how cue transitions and task sequences independently influence performance. The researchers conducted two experiments involving 50 participants from Vanderbilt University. In Experiment 1, participants performed digit parity and magnitude judgments using a 1:1 response-key mapping. Experiment 2 utilized letter half-alphabet and form judgments with a 2:1 response-key mapping to control for hand-switching confounds. Both experiments manipulated the cue-target interval (CTI) at five levels (0–800 ms) to assess time-course functions. The design generated six distinct three-trial task sequences (e.g., ABA-CS, AAA-CR), enabling the isolation of first-order cue transitions, first-order task transitions, and second-order task transitions. The results revealed robust sequential effects where both cue transitions and task sequences independently affected performance. Response times were significantly slower for task switches than repetitions, but this cost was modulated by the preceding task sequence; for instance, ABA sequences were slower than BBA sequences even when cue transitions were held constant. Crucially, cue transitions also exerted an independent effect: cue switches were slower than cue repetitions when task sequences were held constant. Error rates were generally low, though significantly higher for ABA-CR trials. Analysis of four-task sequences further demonstrated that response times increased progressively with the frequency of task switches in a sequence, indicating that third-order transitions also impacted performance. The cue-transition effect remained stable across CTIs for ABA sequences but decreased for AAA sequences, suggesting different underlying mechanisms for these effects. These findings demonstrate that task-switching performance is influenced by both immediate cue transitions and higher-order task sequences, confirming that previous measures of switch costs were contaminated by these factors. The study validates the use of multiple transition cues to partially deconfound these variables, providing a clearer picture of executive control processes. The results support theories involving cue-task association binding and priming of cue encoding, while highlighting the complexity of sequential effects in cognitive control. This methodological advance allows for more precise interpretations of switch costs, distinguishing between costs arising from cue processing and those arising from task-set reconfiguration.

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 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

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

• task switching