Action control in task switching: do action effects modulate N - 2 repetition costs in task switching?

Stefanie Schuch, Angelika Sommer, Sarah Lukas
Author Information
  1. Stefanie Schuch: Institute of Psychology, RWTH Aachen University, Jägerstr. 17-19, 52066, Aachen, Germany. schuch@psych.rwth-aachen.de. ORCID
  2. Angelika Sommer: University of Education, Weingarten, Germany.
  3. Sarah Lukas: University of Education, Weingarten, Germany.

Abstract

Ideomotor theory posits that actions are controlled by the anticipation of their effects. In line with this theoretical framework, response-contingent action effects have been shown to influence performance in choice-reaction time tasks, both in single-task and task-switching context. Using a task-switching paradigm, the present study investigated whether task-contingent action effects influenced N - 2 repetition costs in task switching. N - 2 repetition costs are thought to be related to task-switch costs, and reflect inhibitory control in task switching. It was expected that task-contingent action effects reduce between-task interference, leading to reduced N - 2 repetition costs. An experimental group (N = 24) performed eight blocks of trials with task-contingent action effects, followed by one block with non-contingent action effects; a control group (N = 24) performed nine blocks of trials with non-contingent action effects. In line with our expectations, a three-way interaction of group, block, and task sequence was obtained, indicating differential data patterns for the two groups: In error rates, the group who had received contingent action effects throughout blocks 1-8 showed larger N - 2 repetition costs in the random block 9 than in block 8, whereas the control group showed a reversed data pattern. The RT data pattern was in the same direction, although no significant three-way interaction was obtained. Taken together, we tentatively conclude that task-contingent action effects reduce task inhibition in task switching, and we outline directions for future research on the role of action effects in multitasking performance.

Keywords

References

  1. Psychol Res. 2004 Apr;68(2-3):155-62 [PMID: 14595560]
  2. Mem Cognit. 2006 Mar;34(2):433-44 [PMID: 16752606]
  3. Front Psychol. 2012 Oct 25;3:446 [PMID: 23112787]
  4. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2017 Dec;70(12 ):2419-2433 [PMID: 27653668]
  5. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010 Jun;34(7):1092-101 [PMID: 20036685]
  6. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2004 Jan;57(1):87-106 [PMID: 14681005]
  7. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 Jul;39(4):1128-41 [PMID: 23421506]
  8. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2000 Mar;129(1):4-26 [PMID: 10756484]
  9. Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Oct;24(5):849-78; discussion 878-937 [PMID: 12239891]
  10. Mem Cognit. 2007 Jun;35(4):603-9 [PMID: 17848018]
  11. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2017 Aug;43(8):1568-1583 [PMID: 28383961]
  12. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2011 Jul;64(7):1273-89 [PMID: 21416458]
  13. Psychophysiology. 2010 Nov;47(6):1019-27 [PMID: 20477978]
  14. Front Psychol. 2013 Jan 07;3:595 [PMID: 23441055]
  15. Psychol Bull. 2010 Nov;136(6):943-74 [PMID: 20822210]
  16. Behav Res Methods. 2017 Apr;49(2):653-673 [PMID: 26944576]
  17. Cogn Psychol. 2003 Jun;46(4):361-413 [PMID: 12809680]
  18. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2016 Dec;69(12 ):2431-2451 [PMID: 26594895]
  19. Psychol Res. 2009 Jul;73(4):512-26 [PMID: 19337749]
  20. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Feb;29(1):92-105 [PMID: 12669750]
  21. Psychon Bull Rev. 2010 Feb;17(1):1-14 [PMID: 20081154]
  22. Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Mar;7(3):134-140 [PMID: 12639695]
  23. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Feb;27(1):229-40 [PMID: 11248937]
  24. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Apr;27(2):387-94 [PMID: 11318054]
  25. J Exp Psychol. 1972 Jun;94(1):52-7 [PMID: 5032213]
  26. Front Psychol. 2015 Sep 01;6:1318 [PMID: 26388819]
  27. Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Jun;12(3):530-4 [PMID: 16235641]
  28. Psychol Bull. 2010 Jul;136(4):601-26 [PMID: 20565170]
  29. Psychol Bull. 2010 Sep;136(5):849-74 [PMID: 20804238]
  30. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2010 Nov;135(3):316-22 [PMID: 20875631]

Grants

  1. SCHU 3046/1-1/DFG
  2. LU 2070/1-1/DFG

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Adult
Choice Behavior
Decision Making
Female
Germany
Humans
Male
Multitasking Behavior
Psychomotor Performance
Reaction Time
Students
Task Performance and Analysis
Universities
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0effectsactioncoststaskrepetitionN - 2grouptask-contingentswitchingcontrolblockblocksdataIdeomotortheorylineperformancetask-switchingreduceN = 24performedtrialsnon-contingentthree-wayinteractionobtainedshowedpatternpositsactionscontrolledanticipationtheoreticalframeworkresponse-contingentshowninfluencechoice-reactiontimetaskssingle-taskcontextUsingparadigmpresentstudyinvestigatedwhetherinfluencedthoughtrelatedtask-switchreflectinhibitoryexpectedbetween-taskinterferenceleadingreducedexperimentaleightfollowedonenineexpectationssequenceindicatingdifferentialpatternstwogroups:errorratesreceivedcontingentthroughout1-8largerrandom98whereasreversedRTdirectionalthoughsignificantTakentogethertentativelyconcludeinhibitionoutlinedirectionsfutureresearchrolemultitaskingActionswitching:modulateswitching?ActionN − 2Task

Similar Articles

Cited By