Influence of display type and cue format on task-cuing effects: dissociating switch cost and right-left prevalence effects.

Robert W Proctor, Iring Koch, Kim-Phuong L Vu, Motonori Yamaguchi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In previous studies of task switching and of the right-left prevalence effect, researchers have used a procedure in which the stimulus on each trial occurs in one of four quadrants, and responses are made by pressing one of two diagonally arranged response keys. Across these studies, discrepant effects of cuing interval have been reported. These discrepancies need clarification because cue-based preparation effects are frequently interpreted as reflecting cognitive control processes. In Experiment 1, we compared performance with display formats used by Meiran (1996; Meiran, Chorev, & Sapir, 2000; small display, cues located at sides of quadrants and displayed until response) to study task switching and by Proctor and colleagues (Proctor, Koch, & Vu, 2006; large display, cues located at center of display and shown until target onset) to study right-left prevalence. We found a decrease in task-switch cost with increasing cuing interval with the Meiran display, but not with the Proctor display, but the right-left prevalence effect was of similar size for the two display formats and was relatively unaffected by cuing interval. To determine the basis of the discrepant task-switch results, we used small and large displays in Experiments 2 and 3, respectively, with cue type and cue offset varied. With the side cues, the task-switch cost decreased in all cases at the longer cuing interval, but with the centered cues, it decreased only when the display size was small. Thus, the effects of cuing interval on switch costs are sensitive to variations of display characteristics, whereas cuing interval and display characteristics have little influence on the right-left prevalence effect, suggesting that prevalence effect is due to processes that are independent from those producing the switch cost.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)998-1012
JournalMemory & Cognition
Volume36
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2008

Fingerprint

Cues
Costs and Cost Analysis
Research Personnel

Cite this

Proctor, Robert W ; Koch, Iring ; Vu, Kim-Phuong L ; Yamaguchi, Motonori. / Influence of display type and cue format on task-cuing effects: dissociating switch cost and right-left prevalence effects. In: Memory & Cognition. 2008 ; Vol. 36, No. 5. pp. 998-1012.
@article{b0d124ea58bb42869c89fb47af1e220c,
title = "Influence of display type and cue format on task-cuing effects: dissociating switch cost and right-left prevalence effects.",
abstract = "In previous studies of task switching and of the right-left prevalence effect, researchers have used a procedure in which the stimulus on each trial occurs in one of four quadrants, and responses are made by pressing one of two diagonally arranged response keys. Across these studies, discrepant effects of cuing interval have been reported. These discrepancies need clarification because cue-based preparation effects are frequently interpreted as reflecting cognitive control processes. In Experiment 1, we compared performance with display formats used by Meiran (1996; Meiran, Chorev, & Sapir, 2000; small display, cues located at sides of quadrants and displayed until response) to study task switching and by Proctor and colleagues (Proctor, Koch, & Vu, 2006; large display, cues located at center of display and shown until target onset) to study right-left prevalence. We found a decrease in task-switch cost with increasing cuing interval with the Meiran display, but not with the Proctor display, but the right-left prevalence effect was of similar size for the two display formats and was relatively unaffected by cuing interval. To determine the basis of the discrepant task-switch results, we used small and large displays in Experiments 2 and 3, respectively, with cue type and cue offset varied. With the side cues, the task-switch cost decreased in all cases at the longer cuing interval, but with the centered cues, it decreased only when the display size was small. Thus, the effects of cuing interval on switch costs are sensitive to variations of display characteristics, whereas cuing interval and display characteristics have little influence on the right-left prevalence effect, suggesting that prevalence effect is due to processes that are independent from those producing the switch cost.",
author = "Proctor, {Robert W} and Iring Koch and Vu, {Kim-Phuong L} and Motonori Yamaguchi",
year = "2008",
month = "7",
doi = "10.3758/MC.36.5.998",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "998--1012",
journal = "Memory and Cognition",
issn = "0090-502X",
publisher = "Pscyhonomic Society",
number = "5",

}

Influence of display type and cue format on task-cuing effects: dissociating switch cost and right-left prevalence effects. / Proctor, Robert W; Koch, Iring; Vu, Kim-Phuong L; Yamaguchi, Motonori.

In: Memory & Cognition, Vol. 36, No. 5, 07.2008, p. 998-1012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Influence of display type and cue format on task-cuing effects: dissociating switch cost and right-left prevalence effects.

AU - Proctor, Robert W

AU - Koch, Iring

AU - Vu, Kim-Phuong L

AU - Yamaguchi, Motonori

PY - 2008/7

Y1 - 2008/7

N2 - In previous studies of task switching and of the right-left prevalence effect, researchers have used a procedure in which the stimulus on each trial occurs in one of four quadrants, and responses are made by pressing one of two diagonally arranged response keys. Across these studies, discrepant effects of cuing interval have been reported. These discrepancies need clarification because cue-based preparation effects are frequently interpreted as reflecting cognitive control processes. In Experiment 1, we compared performance with display formats used by Meiran (1996; Meiran, Chorev, & Sapir, 2000; small display, cues located at sides of quadrants and displayed until response) to study task switching and by Proctor and colleagues (Proctor, Koch, & Vu, 2006; large display, cues located at center of display and shown until target onset) to study right-left prevalence. We found a decrease in task-switch cost with increasing cuing interval with the Meiran display, but not with the Proctor display, but the right-left prevalence effect was of similar size for the two display formats and was relatively unaffected by cuing interval. To determine the basis of the discrepant task-switch results, we used small and large displays in Experiments 2 and 3, respectively, with cue type and cue offset varied. With the side cues, the task-switch cost decreased in all cases at the longer cuing interval, but with the centered cues, it decreased only when the display size was small. Thus, the effects of cuing interval on switch costs are sensitive to variations of display characteristics, whereas cuing interval and display characteristics have little influence on the right-left prevalence effect, suggesting that prevalence effect is due to processes that are independent from those producing the switch cost.

AB - In previous studies of task switching and of the right-left prevalence effect, researchers have used a procedure in which the stimulus on each trial occurs in one of four quadrants, and responses are made by pressing one of two diagonally arranged response keys. Across these studies, discrepant effects of cuing interval have been reported. These discrepancies need clarification because cue-based preparation effects are frequently interpreted as reflecting cognitive control processes. In Experiment 1, we compared performance with display formats used by Meiran (1996; Meiran, Chorev, & Sapir, 2000; small display, cues located at sides of quadrants and displayed until response) to study task switching and by Proctor and colleagues (Proctor, Koch, & Vu, 2006; large display, cues located at center of display and shown until target onset) to study right-left prevalence. We found a decrease in task-switch cost with increasing cuing interval with the Meiran display, but not with the Proctor display, but the right-left prevalence effect was of similar size for the two display formats and was relatively unaffected by cuing interval. To determine the basis of the discrepant task-switch results, we used small and large displays in Experiments 2 and 3, respectively, with cue type and cue offset varied. With the side cues, the task-switch cost decreased in all cases at the longer cuing interval, but with the centered cues, it decreased only when the display size was small. Thus, the effects of cuing interval on switch costs are sensitive to variations of display characteristics, whereas cuing interval and display characteristics have little influence on the right-left prevalence effect, suggesting that prevalence effect is due to processes that are independent from those producing the switch cost.

U2 - 10.3758/MC.36.5.998

DO - 10.3758/MC.36.5.998

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 998

EP - 1012

JO - Memory and Cognition

JF - Memory and Cognition

SN - 0090-502X

IS - 5

ER -