Sequential effects in deductionCost of inference switch

  1. Emilio G. Milán
  2. Sergio Moreno Ríos
  3. Orlando Espino Morales
  4. Carlos Santamaría Moreno
  5. Antonio González Hernández
Journal:
Psicológica: Revista de metodología y psicología experimental

ISSN: 0211-2159

Year of publication: 2010

Volume: 31

Issue: 2

Pages: 171-198

Type: Article

Export: RIS

Abstract

The task-switch paradigm has helped psychologists gain insight into the processes involved in changing from one activity to another. The literature has yielded consistent results about switch cost reconfiguration (abrupt offset in regular task-switch vs. gradual reduction in random task-switch; endogenous and exogenous components of switch cost; cost asymmetry...). In this study we present several experiments in which we investigated the reconfiguration process elicited by task switching between Modus Ponens and Modus Tollens. We found that the switch from one inference to a new one produces impairment in accuracy as an increase in reaction time (cost of inference switch). Moreover, with random sequences and a long response stimulus interval we found a gradual improvement in Modus Tollens repetitions. Both results are compatible with the task reconfiguration hypothesis.

Bibliographic References

  • Allport, A. D., & Wylie, G. (1999). Task-switching: positive and negative priming of task set. In G., Humphreys, J. Duncan, & A. Treisman, (Eds.), Attention, space, and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience. Oxford: University Press.
  • Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. L. (1994). Switching intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltá & M. Moscovitch (Eds), Attention and performance XV. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Braine, M. D. S., & O'Brien, D. P. (1998). Mental Logic. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Dreher, J.C., Koechlina, E., Omar Ali, S. & Crafman, J. (2002). The roles of timing and task order during task switching. Neuroimage, 17, 95-109.
  • Dreisbach, G., Haider, H., Kawski, S., Kluwe, R. H., & Luna, A. (1998). Facilitory and inhibitory effects of cues on switching tasks. Paper presented at the X Congress of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Jerusalem, Israel.
  • Eslinger, P. J., & Grattan, L. M. (1993). Frontal lobe and frontal-striatal substrate for different forms of human cognitive flexibility. Neuropsychologia, 31, 17-28.
  • Evans, J.St.B.T. & Over, D.E. (1997). Rationality in reasoning: the case of deductive competence. Current Psychology of Cognition, 16, 3-38.
  • Evans, J.St.B.T. (2002). Logic and human reasoning: an assessment of the deduction paradigm. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 978-996.
  • Evans, St. B. T., Newstead S. E. y Byrne R. M. J. (1993). Human Reasoning. Hove (UK): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Fan, J., McCandliss, B.P., Sommer, T., Raz, A. & Posner, M.I. (2002). Testing the efficiency and independence ofattentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 340-347.
  • Gilbert, S. J. & Shallice, T. (2002). Task switching. A PDP model. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 297-337.
  • González, A., Milán, E., Tornay, F. J., & Sanabria, D. (2002). Naturaleza ideomotora del coste residual [Idiomotor nature of the residual cost]. Poster presented at the IV meeting of the Sociedad Española de Psicología Experimental (Spanish Society of Experimental Psychology), April 18-20, Oviedo, Spain.
  • Gopher, D., Armony, L., & Greenspan, Y. (1998). Switching tasks and attention policies and the ability to prepare for such shifts. Paper presented at the X Congress of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Jerusalem, Israel.
  • Jersild, A.T. (1927) Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology, 89.
  • Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1991). Deduction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Legrenzi, P., Girotto, V., & Johnson-Laird, P.H. (1993). Focussing in reasoning and decision making. Cognition, 49, 37-66.
  • Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 2, 1423-1442.
  • Meiran, N., Chorev, Z., & Sapir, A. (2000). Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology, 41, 211-253.
  • Milán, E.G., Sanabria, D., Tornay, F. & González, a. (2005). Exploring task set reconfiguration with random task sequences. Acta Psychologica, 118. 319-339.
  • Milán, E.G, González, A, Salazar, E. & Tornay F. (in press). El coste por cambio de la disposición mental. Lecturas en Psicología Experimental. SEPEX.
  • Monsell, S. (1996). Control of mental processes. In V. Bruce (Ed.), Unsolved mysteries of the mind, 93-148. Hove: Erlbaum.
  • Monsell, S., Yeung, N., & Azuma, R. (2000). Reconfiguration of task set: Is it easier to switch to the weaker task? Psychological Research, 63, 250-264.
  • Monsell, S., Summer, P. & Waters, H. (2003). Task set reconfiguration after a predictable or unpredictable task switch: Is one trial enough? Memory & Cognition, 31, 327-342.
  • Nieuwenhuis, S. & Monsell, S. (2002). Residual cost in task switching: test the failure to engage hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(1), 86-92.
  • Pardo, J. V., Pardo, P. J., Janer, K. W., & Raichle, M. E., (1990). The anterior cingulate cortex mediates processing selection in the Stroop attentional conflict paradigm. Proceedings of the 5ational Academy of Science, 87, 256-259.
  • Pereda, A., Torralbo, A., Milán, E.G. & González, A. (submitted). Practice effects in residual cost. Perception and psychophysics.
  • Rips, L. J. (1994). The psychology of proof. Cambridge, MA: Routledge.
  • Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Cost of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207-231.
  • Ruthruff, E., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (2001). Switching between simple cognitive tasks. The interaction of top-down and bottom-up factors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 27, 1404-1419.
  • Schneider, W. & Shiffrin, R.M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.
  • Schneider, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles. Behaviour Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 20, 206-271.
  • Sohn, M. H. & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Task preparation and task repetition: two component model of task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 764-778.
  • Sohn, M. H., Ursu, S., Anderson, J. R., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2000). The role of prefrontal cortex and posterior parietal cortex in task switching. Proceedings of the 5ational Academy of Sciences of the USA. 97, 13448-13453.
  • Spector, A., & Biederman, I. (1976). Mental set and mental shift revisited. American Journal of Psychology, 89, 669-679.
  • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662
  • Tornay, F. J., & Milán, E. G. (2001). A more complete task-set reconfiguration in random than in predictable task switch. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 54, 785-803.
  • Yeung, N. & Monsell, S. (2003). Switching between tasks of unequal familiarity: The roles of stimulus attribute and response set selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29 (2), 455-469.