Automatic and Intentional Activation of Task Sets
Four experiments examined automatic and intentional activation of task sets in a switching paradigm. Experiment 1 demonstrated incidental task sequence learning that was not accompanied by verbalizable task sequence knowledge. This learning did not affect task shift cost and may be attributed to aut...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition memory, and cognition, 2001-11, Vol.27 (6), p.1474-1486 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1486 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 1474 |
| container_title | Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition |
| container_volume | 27 |
| creator | Koch, Iring |
| description | Four experiments examined automatic and intentional activation of task sets in a switching paradigm. Experiment 1 demonstrated incidental task sequence learning that was not accompanied by verbalizable task sequence knowledge. This learning did not affect task shift cost and may be attributed to automatic task-set activation. In Experiment 2, both shift cost and learning effect increased when the response-cue interval was short, indicating the influence of residual, persisting activation of the preceding task set. In Experiment 3, learning disappeared with a long cue-stimulus interval (CSI), which resulted in a strong preparation effect. This preparation, however, reduced reaction time level but was not specific to task shifts. Finally, Experiment 4 showed that a within-subject CSI variation also leads to reduced shift costs. Together, the data suggest an activational account of task preparation and may have relevant implications for inhibitory accounts. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1474 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72283104</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>94225648</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a399t-3e90eceb9473ec8c28f1e13e4d93fa2715d71b095bcfcf25084bf4ac5f17cef83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90UtLxDAQB_Agiq6PTyBIEfXWNZNJN8lxEV8geFDPYZpNoNrH2rTifntbdlHxYC5D4Dcz5B_GjoFPgaO65ELpVKHBqVDT2RSkkltsAgZNCkJn22zyLfbYfoyvfDyod9kegALUGiYM5n3XVNQVLqF6kdzXna-7oqmpTOauKz5ovCRNSJ4pviVPvouHbCdQGf3Rph6wl5vr56u79OHx9v5q_pASGtOl6A33zudGKvROO6EDeEAvFwYDCQXZQkHOTZa74ILIuJZ5kOSyAMr5oPGAXaznLtvmvfexs1URnS9Lqn3TR6uE0AhcDvD0D3xt-nZ4QbQzkJJLYfA_JEDiTCsUA8I1cm0TY-uDXbZFRe3KArdj5nZM1I6JWqHszI6ZD10nm9F9XvnFT88m5AGcbQBFR2VoqXZF_OUwM9nIzteMlmSXceWoHb6l9NF-ltWvfV8S85PS</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>614404293</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Automatic and Intentional Activation of Task Sets</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PsycARTICLES</source><creator>Koch, Iring</creator><creatorcontrib>Koch, Iring</creatorcontrib><description>Four experiments examined automatic and intentional activation of task sets in a switching paradigm. Experiment 1 demonstrated incidental task sequence learning that was not accompanied by verbalizable task sequence knowledge. This learning did not affect task shift cost and may be attributed to automatic task-set activation. In Experiment 2, both shift cost and learning effect increased when the response-cue interval was short, indicating the influence of residual, persisting activation of the preceding task set. In Experiment 3, learning disappeared with a long cue-stimulus interval (CSI), which resulted in a strong preparation effect. This preparation, however, reduced reaction time level but was not specific to task shifts. Finally, Experiment 4 showed that a within-subject CSI variation also leads to reduced shift costs. Together, the data suggest an activational account of task preparation and may have relevant implications for inhibitory accounts.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0278-7393</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1285</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1474</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11713881</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Activity levels. Psychomotricity ; Adult ; Attention ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cognition ; Cues ; Experiments ; Female ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Human ; Humans ; Inhibition (Psychology) ; Intention ; Learning ; Male ; Psychology ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychology. Psychophysiology ; Reaction Time ; Set (Psychology) ; Task Complexity ; Time ; Vigilance. Attention. Sleep</subject><ispartof>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2001-11, Vol.27 (6), p.1474-1486</ispartof><rights>2001 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>2001 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright American Psychological Association Nov 2001</rights><rights>2001, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a399t-3e90eceb9473ec8c28f1e13e4d93fa2715d71b095bcfcf25084bf4ac5f17cef83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a399t-3e90eceb9473ec8c28f1e13e4d93fa2715d71b095bcfcf25084bf4ac5f17cef83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=1135951$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11713881$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Koch, Iring</creatorcontrib><title>Automatic and Intentional Activation of Task Sets</title><title>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition</title><addtitle>J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn</addtitle><description>Four experiments examined automatic and intentional activation of task sets in a switching paradigm. Experiment 1 demonstrated incidental task sequence learning that was not accompanied by verbalizable task sequence knowledge. This learning did not affect task shift cost and may be attributed to automatic task-set activation. In Experiment 2, both shift cost and learning effect increased when the response-cue interval was short, indicating the influence of residual, persisting activation of the preceding task set. In Experiment 3, learning disappeared with a long cue-stimulus interval (CSI), which resulted in a strong preparation effect. This preparation, however, reduced reaction time level but was not specific to task shifts. Finally, Experiment 4 showed that a within-subject CSI variation also leads to reduced shift costs. Together, the data suggest an activational account of task preparation and may have relevant implications for inhibitory accounts.</description><subject>Activity levels. Psychomotricity</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Attention</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cognition</subject><subject>Cues</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Human</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Inhibition (Psychology)</subject><subject>Intention</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychophysiology</subject><subject>Reaction Time</subject><subject>Set (Psychology)</subject><subject>Task Complexity</subject><subject>Time</subject><subject>Vigilance. Attention. Sleep</subject><issn>0278-7393</issn><issn>1939-1285</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2001</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp90UtLxDAQB_Agiq6PTyBIEfXWNZNJN8lxEV8geFDPYZpNoNrH2rTifntbdlHxYC5D4Dcz5B_GjoFPgaO65ELpVKHBqVDT2RSkkltsAgZNCkJn22zyLfbYfoyvfDyod9kegALUGiYM5n3XVNQVLqF6kdzXna-7oqmpTOauKz5ovCRNSJ4pviVPvouHbCdQGf3Rph6wl5vr56u79OHx9v5q_pASGtOl6A33zudGKvROO6EDeEAvFwYDCQXZQkHOTZa74ILIuJZ5kOSyAMr5oPGAXaznLtvmvfexs1URnS9Lqn3TR6uE0AhcDvD0D3xt-nZ4QbQzkJJLYfA_JEDiTCsUA8I1cm0TY-uDXbZFRe3KArdj5nZM1I6JWqHszI6ZD10nm9F9XvnFT88m5AGcbQBFR2VoqXZF_OUwM9nIzteMlmSXceWoHb6l9NF-ltWvfV8S85PS</recordid><startdate>200111</startdate><enddate>200111</enddate><creator>Koch, Iring</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200111</creationdate><title>Automatic and Intentional Activation of Task Sets</title><author>Koch, Iring</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a399t-3e90eceb9473ec8c28f1e13e4d93fa2715d71b095bcfcf25084bf4ac5f17cef83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2001</creationdate><topic>Activity levels. Psychomotricity</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Attention</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cognition</topic><topic>Cues</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Human</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Inhibition (Psychology)</topic><topic>Intention</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychophysiology</topic><topic>Reaction Time</topic><topic>Set (Psychology)</topic><topic>Task Complexity</topic><topic>Time</topic><topic>Vigilance. Attention. Sleep</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Koch, Iring</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PsycARTICLES- ProQuest</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Koch, Iring</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Automatic and Intentional Activation of Task Sets</atitle><jtitle>Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition</jtitle><addtitle>J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn</addtitle><date>2001-11</date><risdate>2001</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1474</spage><epage>1486</epage><pages>1474-1486</pages><issn>0278-7393</issn><eissn>1939-1285</eissn><abstract>Four experiments examined automatic and intentional activation of task sets in a switching paradigm. Experiment 1 demonstrated incidental task sequence learning that was not accompanied by verbalizable task sequence knowledge. This learning did not affect task shift cost and may be attributed to automatic task-set activation. In Experiment 2, both shift cost and learning effect increased when the response-cue interval was short, indicating the influence of residual, persisting activation of the preceding task set. In Experiment 3, learning disappeared with a long cue-stimulus interval (CSI), which resulted in a strong preparation effect. This preparation, however, reduced reaction time level but was not specific to task shifts. Finally, Experiment 4 showed that a within-subject CSI variation also leads to reduced shift costs. Together, the data suggest an activational account of task preparation and may have relevant implications for inhibitory accounts.</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>11713881</pmid><doi>10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1474</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0278-7393 |
| ispartof | Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 2001-11, Vol.27 (6), p.1474-1486 |
| issn | 0278-7393 1939-1285 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_72283104 |
| source | MEDLINE; PsycARTICLES |
| subjects | Activity levels. Psychomotricity Adult Attention Biological and medical sciences Cognition Cues Experiments Female Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Human Humans Inhibition (Psychology) Intention Learning Male Psychology Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychology. Psychophysiology Reaction Time Set (Psychology) Task Complexity Time Vigilance. Attention. Sleep |
| title | Automatic and Intentional Activation of Task Sets |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T17%3A40%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Automatic%20and%20Intentional%20Activation%20of%20Task%20Sets&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20experimental%20psychology.%20Learning,%20memory,%20and%20cognition&rft.au=Koch,%20Iring&rft.date=2001-11&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1474&rft.epage=1486&rft.pages=1474-1486&rft.issn=0278-7393&rft.eissn=1939-1285&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1474&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E94225648%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=614404293&rft_id=info:pmid/11713881&rfr_iscdi=true |