To examine whether an ongoing primary task is inhibited when switching to an interruption task, we implemented the n − 2 backward inhibition paradigm into a task-interruption setting. In two experiments, subjects performed two primary tasks (block-wise manipulation) consisting of a predefined sequence of three subtasks. The primary tasks differed regarding whether the last subtask switched or repeated relative to the penultimate subtask, resulting in n − 1 switch subtasks (e.g., ABC) and n − 1 repetition subtasks (e.g., ACC) as the last subtask of the primary task. Occasionally, an interruption task was introduced before the last subtask of a primary task, changing the last subtask of the primary task from a n − 1 switch subtask to a n − 2 switch subtask (e.g., AB → secondary task → C) and from a n − 1 repetition subtask to a n − 2 repetition subtask (e.g., AC → secondary task → C). In two experiments with different degrees of response-set overlap between the interruption task and the subtasks of the primary task, we observed that switching back from the interruption task to the primary task resulted in n − 2 switch costs in the first subtask after the interruption (i.e., worse performance in n − 2 switch subtasks than in n − 2 repetition subtasks). This n − 2 switch cost was replicated in a third experiment in which we used a predefined sequence of four subtasks instead of three subtasks. Our finding of n − 2 switch costs suggest that the last subtask performed before the interruption remains activated when switching to the interruption task.
Hirsch, P., Moretti, L., Askin, S., Koch, I. (2024). Examining the cognitive processes underlying resumption costs in task-interruption contexts: Decay or inhibition of suspended task goals?. MEMORY & COGNITION, 52(2), 271-284 [10.3758/s13421-023-01458-8].
Examining the cognitive processes underlying resumption costs in task-interruption contexts: Decay or inhibition of suspended task goals?
Moretti, LucaSecondo
;
2024
Abstract
To examine whether an ongoing primary task is inhibited when switching to an interruption task, we implemented the n − 2 backward inhibition paradigm into a task-interruption setting. In two experiments, subjects performed two primary tasks (block-wise manipulation) consisting of a predefined sequence of three subtasks. The primary tasks differed regarding whether the last subtask switched or repeated relative to the penultimate subtask, resulting in n − 1 switch subtasks (e.g., ABC) and n − 1 repetition subtasks (e.g., ACC) as the last subtask of the primary task. Occasionally, an interruption task was introduced before the last subtask of a primary task, changing the last subtask of the primary task from a n − 1 switch subtask to a n − 2 switch subtask (e.g., AB → secondary task → C) and from a n − 1 repetition subtask to a n − 2 repetition subtask (e.g., AC → secondary task → C). In two experiments with different degrees of response-set overlap between the interruption task and the subtasks of the primary task, we observed that switching back from the interruption task to the primary task resulted in n − 2 switch costs in the first subtask after the interruption (i.e., worse performance in n − 2 switch subtasks than in n − 2 repetition subtasks). This n − 2 switch cost was replicated in a third experiment in which we used a predefined sequence of four subtasks instead of three subtasks. Our finding of n − 2 switch costs suggest that the last subtask performed before the interruption remains activated when switching to the interruption task.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Hirsch et al-2024-Memory & Cognition-VoR.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia di allegato:
Publisher’s Version (Version of Record, VoR)
Licenza:
Creative Commons
Dimensione
777.78 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
777.78 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.


