Abstract
The purpose of the investigations was to dissociate processes of task preparation from task execution in the task-switching paradigm. The basic assumption was that task repetitions have 2 advantages over task shifts: an activation advantage as a result of the execution of the same task type in the pretrial, and an expectation advantage, because participants, in general, implicitly expect a ...
Abstract
The purpose of the investigations was to dissociate processes of task preparation from task execution in the task-switching paradigm. The basic assumption was that task repetitions have 2 advantages over task shifts: an activation advantage as a result of the execution of the same task type in the pretrial, and an expectation advantage, because participants, in general, implicitly expect a repetition. In Experiments 1-3, the authors explicitly manipulated expectancies by presenting cues that announced a shift and/or a repetition with probabilities of 1.00, .75, .50, or .25. Increasing latencies with decreasing probability for shifts and repetitions show that the expectation advantage can be equalized by preparation. However, the activation advantage represented by constant shift costs between tasks of the same probability is not penetrable by preparation. In Experiments 4 and 5, the authors found evidence that preparation involves activation of the expected task and inhibition of distracting tasks.
Altmetric