Visual task-switching: No cost for switching to search

Task selection cost asymmetry without task switching.

The switch cost asymmetry (i.e., larger costs when switching from a nondominant into a dominant task than vice versa) has been explained in terms of the trial-to-trial carryover of activation levels required for the dominant versus the nondominant task. However, there is an open question about whether an actual switch in task is in fact necessary to obtain a "selection" cost asymmetry. In Exper...

Audio-Visual Task Switching in Multisensory Environments

The majority of task-switching research has focused on shifting attention between multiple tasks in the same perceptual modality (i.e., visual) within a single task domain. However, typical environments are not unisensory, and typical response decisions often involve multiple task domains. This study examines multisensory task-switching costs and the interactions of several variables, including...

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

Recent methodological advances have allowed researchers to address confounds in the measurement of task-switch costs in task-switching performance by dissociating cue switching from task switching. For example, in the transition-cuing procedure, which involves presenting cues for task transitions rather than for tasks, cue transitions (cue switches and cue repetitions) and task transitions (tas...

Running head: Task-Selection Cost Asymmetry without Task Switching

Dissociating restart cost and mixing cost in task switching.

Three experiments investigated the cognitive mechanisms underlying the restart cost and mixing cost in task switching. To this aim, the predictability of task order was varied (unpredictable in Experiment 1 and predictable in Experiments 2 and 3) across experiments, which employed a multiple-trial paradigm. Verbal cues for color and shape matching tasks were presented before a run of four trial...