任务切换机制研究的理论争议与整合

心理与行为研究 ›› 2009, Vol. 7 ›› Issue (4): 304-311.

任务切换机制研究的理论争议与整合

黄四林,林崇德

中央财经大学社会发展学院心理学系,北京 100081; 北京师范大学发展心理研究所,北京 100875

收稿日期:2008-05-20 出版日期:2009-12-20 发布日期:2015-01-21
通讯作者: 林崇德,男,北京师范大学发展心理研究所教授,博士生导师。Email: linchongde@263.net。
作者简介:黄四林,男,中央财经大学社会发展学院心理学系讲师,博士。
基金资助:
本研究得到国家自然科学基金30670717项目的资助

THEORETICAL CONTROVERSY AND INTEGRATION OF TASK SWITCHING RESEARCH

Huang Silin,Lin Chongde

Department of Psychology, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing 100081; Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875

Received:2008-05-20 Online:2009-12-20 Published:2015-01-21

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 任务切换是执行控制的一种重要功能。切换代价是量化执行控制持续时间的指标,并广泛应用于各个研究领域。但是切换代价在多大程度上体现了执行控制的作用,仍然还存在争论,当前主要存在任务设置重构、任务设置惯性和联结竞争三种理论。本文首先介绍了三种理论的基本观点和实验证据,以及对任务切换加工机制的分析;其次阐明了对三种理论进行整合的相关研究;最后分析了进一步研究的方向。

关键词: 任务切换, 切换代价, 剩余代价, 执行控制

Abstract: Task switching is an important function of executive control. The difference between the reaction times(or errors)required for task-switch and task-repeat trials is called switch cost, and some research have attempted to specify its nature and origins to uncover the mechanisms underlying task switching performance. However, there are three different theories as to whether switch cost is an indicator of the duration of executive control: task-set reconfiguration, task-set inertia and task set priming/associative retrieval. First, basic viewpoints, experimental evidences and the mechanism of task switching in the three theories were reviewed respectively. Second, we present some research about the integration of these theories. In the end, we briefed several problems and prospected the developmental tendency in this research field in the future.

Key words: task switching, switch cost, residual cost, executive control

中图分类号:

B848

黄四林,林崇德. 任务切换机制研究的理论争议与整合[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2009, 7(4): 304-311.

Huang Silin,Lin Chongde. THEORETICAL CONTROVERSY AND INTEGRATION OF TASK SWITCHING RESEARCH[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2009, 7(4): 304-311.

参考文献

[1] Monsell S. Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2003, 7(3): 134-140
[2] Logan G D. Executive control of thought and action: In search of the wild homunculus. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2003, 12(2): 45-48
[3] Jersild A T. Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology. 1927, 89: 5-82
[4] Rogers R D, Monsell S. Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 1995, 124(2): 207-231
[5] Allprot D A, Styles E A, Hsieh S. Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks//Umilta C, Moscovith M. Attention and Performance, XV, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 1994, 421-452
[6] Meiran N, Chorev Z, Sapir A. Component processes in task switching. Cognitive Psychology. 2000, 41(3): 211-253
[7] Monsell S, Mizon G A. Can the task-cuing paradigm measure an endogenous task-set reconfiguration process? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2006, 32(3): 493-516
[8] Poulsen C, Luu P, Davey C, et al. Dynamics of task sets: Evidence from dense-array event-related potentials. Cognitive Brain Research, 2005, 24(1): 133-154
[9] Sohn M-H, Ursu S, Anderson J R, et al. The role of prefrontal cortex and posterior parietal cortex in task switching. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States of America, 2000, 97(24): 13448-13453
[10] Rubinstein J S, Meyer D E, Evans J E. Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2001, 27(4): 763-797
[11] Karayanidis F, Coltheart M, Michie P T, et al. Electrophysiological correlates of anticipatory and post-stimulus components of task switching. Psychophysiology, 2003, 40(3): 329-348
[12] Nicholson R, Karayanidis F, Poboka D, et al. Electrophysiological correlates of anticipatory of task switching processes. Psychophysiology, 2005, 42(5): 540-554
[13] Aron A R, Monsell S, Sahakian B J, et al. A componential analysis of task-switching deficits associated with lesion of left and right frontal cortex. Brain, 2004, 127(7): 1561-1573
[14] Hubner M, Kluwe R H, Luna-Rodriguez A, et al. Task preparation and stimulus-evoked competition. Acta psychological, 2004, 115(2/3): 211-234
[15] Nicholson R, Karayanidis F, Davies A, et al. Components of task-set reconfiguration: Differential effects of ‘switch-to’ and ‘switch-away’ cues. Brain research, 2006, 1121(1): 160-176
[16] De Jong R. An intention-activation account of residual switch costs//Monsell S, Driver J. Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2000, 357-376
[17] Mayr U, Kliegl R. Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 2003, 29(3):362-372
[18] Sohn M H, Anderson J R. Task preparation and task repetition: Two-component model of task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2001, 130(4): 764-778
[19] Goffaux P, Phillips N A, Sinai M, et al. Behavioural and electrophysiological measures of task switching during single and mixed-task conditions. Biological Psychology, 2006, 72(3): 278-290
[20] Allport A, Wylie G. Task switching, stimulus-response bindings and negative priming//Monsell S, Driver J. Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 2000, 35-70
[21] Meuter R F I, Allport A. Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 1999, 40(1): 25-40
[22] Mayr U, Keele S W. Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 2000, 129(1): 4-26
[23] Swainson R, Cunnington R, Jackson G M, et al. Cognitive control mechanisms revealed by ERP and fMRI: Evidence from repeated task-switching. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2003, 15(6): 785-799
[24] Ruthruff E, Remington R W, Johnston J C. Switching between simple cognitive tasks: The interaction of top-down and bottom-up factors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2001, 27(6): 1404-1419
[25] Koch I. Sequential task predictability in task switching. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review. 2005, 12(1): 107-112
[26] Hsieh S. The lateralized readiness potential and P300 of stimulus-set switching. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2006, 60(3): 284-291
[27] Hsieh S, Chen P. The effect of task preparation in task switching as reflected on lateralized readiness potential. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2007, 63(1): 98-104
[28] Brass M, Cramon D Y. The role of the frontal cortex in task preparation. Cerebral Cortex, 2002, 12(9): 908-914
[29] Koch I, Phillipp A M. Effects of response selection on the task repetition benefit in task switching. Memory and Cognition. 2005, 33(4): 624-634
[30] Philipp A M, Jolicoeur P, Falkenstein M, et al. Response selection and response execution in task switching: evidence from a Go-signal paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2007, 33(6): 1062-1075
[31] Hsieh S, Liu L C. The nature of switch cost: task set configuration or carry-over effect? Cognitive Brain Research, 2005, 22(2): 165-175
[32] Waszak F, Hommel B, Allport A. Task-switching and long-term priming: Role of episodic stimulus-task bindings in task-shift costs. Cognitive Psychology, 2003, 46: 361-413
[33] Koch I, Allport A. Cue-based preparation and stimulus-based priming of tasks in task switching. Memory and Cognition, 2006, 34(2): 433-444
[34] Hsieh S. Two-component processes in switching attention: A study of event-related potentials. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2002, 94(2): 1168-1176