The Effect of Cue-Matching on Task Switching: Evidence from Successive Cue-Matching Tasks

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2025.06.007

Abstract

Abstract:

The present study was divided into two experiments using a continuous cue-matching task paradigm to separate cue change from task switching, to examine the effect of cue matching on task switching, and to examine whether prolonged CTI had an effect on pure switching costs. The experimental results showed that in the cue-matching condition, task switching was associated with longer reaction times and lower accuracy rates than task repetition, that is, the typical switching cost; in the cue-mismatch condition, the reaction time switching cost disappeared and the accuracy rate switching cost reversed. The disappearance and reversal of the conversion cost may stem from cognitive conflicts arising from inconsistent cue and task processing results, which suggests that individuals may combine cues and tasks in cue-task switching as a whole with hierarchical correlations.

Key words: cue-matching, task switching, switching cost

摘要：

本研究分为两个实验，采用连续线索匹配任务范式将线索变化与任务转换分离，考察线索匹配对任务转换的影响，并考察延长CTI(cue-target interval)是否也对纯粹的转换代价产生影响。实验结果表明，在线索匹配情况下，任务转换比任务重复的反应时更长，正确率更低，体现了典型的转换代价；在线索不匹配条件下，反应时转换代价消失，正确率转换代价反转。CTI长短对任务转换代价的影响仅见于线索匹配条件，线索不匹配时无此效应。转换代价的消失与反转可能源于线索与任务加工结果不一致产生的认知冲突，反映了个体在线索任务转换中可能将线索与任务组合为一个具有层级关联性的整体。

关键词: 线索匹配, 任务转换, 转换代价

Zixia LI, Fuhong LI. The Effect of Cue-Matching on Task Switching: Evidence from Successive Cue-Matching Tasks[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2025, 23(6): 774-781.

李子夏, 李富洪. 线索匹配对任务转换的影响：来自复杂线索−任务转换的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2025, 23(6): 774-781.

Figures/Tables 3

References 0

	付美玲, 李富洪, 谢流芳. 任务切换理论争议新证据. 心理科学, 2022, 45 (5): 1085- 1091.
	史艺荃, 周晓林. 执行控制研究的重要范式——任务切换. 心理科学进展, 2004, 12 (5): 672- 679.
	魏勇刚, 李红. (2005). 任务转换中的执行控制研究. 西南师范大学学报(人文社会科学版), 31(2), 36–40.
	Abrahamse, E., Braem, S., Notebaert, W., & Verguts, T. Grounding cognitive control in associative learning. Psychological Bulletin, 2016, 142 (7): 693- 728. DOI
	Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance: Vol. 15: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
	Bindra, D., Williams, J. A., & Wise, J. S. Judgments of sameness and difference: Experiments on decision time. Science, 1965, 150 (3703): 1625- 1627. DOI
	Forstmann, B. U., Brass, M., Koch, I., & von Cramon, D. Y. Internally generated and directly cued task sets: An investigation with fMRI. Neuropsychologia, 2005, 43 (6): 943- 952. DOI
	Han, J. H., Xie, L. F., Cao, B. H., Li, J. C., Chen, Y., & Li, F. H. More abstract, more difficult to shift: Behavior and electrophysiological evidence. Behavioural Brain Research, 2019, 362, 273- 278. DOI
	Heikoop, K. W., Declerck, M., Los, S. A., & Koch, I. Dissociating language-switch costs from cue-switch costs in bilingual language switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2016, 19 (5): 921- 927. DOI
	Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. Control and interference in task switching—A review. Psychological Bulletin, 2010, 136 (5): 849- 874. DOI
	Li, X. Q., Li, B. X., Liu, X. H., Lages, M., & Stoet, G. (2019). Task-switching costs disappear if non-Chinese participants respond to Chinese characters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(11), 2051–2071.
	Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2003, 29 (3): 575- 599. DOI
	Mayr, U., & Kliegl, R. (2003). Differential effects of cue changes and task changes on task-set selection costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(3), 362–372.
	Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1423–1442.
	Meiran, N. (2000). Reconfiguration of stimulus task sets and response task sets during task switching. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Control of cognitive processes: Attention and performance XVIII (pp. 377–399). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
	Rabbitt, P. M., & Vyas, S. M. Interference between binary classification judgments and some repetition effects in a serial choice reaction time task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 103 (6): 1181- 1190. DOI
	Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. Costs of a predictible switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1995, 124 (2): 207- 231. DOI
	Schmidt, J. R., & Liefooghe, B. Feature integration and task switching: Diminished switch costs after controlling for stimulus, response, and cue repetitions. PLoS One, 2016, 11 (3): e0151188. DOI
	Schneider, D. W. Investigating a method for reducing residual switch costs in cued task switching. Memory & Cognition, 2016, 44 (5): 762- 777.
	Schneider, D. W., & Logan, G. D. (2007). Task switching versus cue switching: Using transition cuing to disentangle sequential effects in task-switching performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(2), 370–378.
	van Loy, B., Liefooghe, B., & Vandierendonck, A. Cognitive control in cued task switching with transition cues: Cue processing, task processing, and cue-task transition congruency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2010, 63 (10): 1916- 1935. DOI
	Wu, J. X., Chen, Y., Li, Z. X., & Li, F. H. Cognitive control is modulated by hierarchical complexity of task switching: An event-related potential study. Behavioural Brain Research, 2022, 434, 114025. DOI
	Wylie, G. R., Javitt, D. C., & Foxe, J. J. Cognitive control processes during an anticipated switch of task. European Journal of Neuroscience, 2003, 17 (3): 667- 672. DOI

[1]	GAO Lei, GAO Xiaolei, BAI Xuejun, CHEN Meixiang, GUO Zhiying. Language Switching and Switching Cost in Language Comprehension of Tibetan-Chinese Bilinguals With Different Proficiency Levels [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2018, 16(6): 744-750.
[2]	Liu Li. The Effects of Processing Time and Processing Rate on Working Memory Span [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2013, 11(3): 333-339.
[3]	Yang Xiujie, Han Yuge, Wang Dahua. The Aging Effect of Task Switching [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2013, 11(3): 359-366.
[4]	Huang Silin. THE EFFECT OF TYPE OF STIMULUS AND FOREKNOWLEDGE ON TASK SWITCHING [J]. , 2011, 9(3): 209-213.
[5]	Huang Silin,Lin Chongde. THEORETICAL CONTROVERSY AND INTEGRATION OF TASK SWITCHING RESEARCH [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2009, 7(4): 304-311.
[6]	Qi Bing1,2, Shen Deli1, Bai Xuejun1, Ma Jing3. SHIFTING ATTENTION OF PRIMARY SCHOOL AND MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS [J]. , 2007, 5(3): 204-210.
[7]	Qi Bing,Bai Xuejun,Shen Deli. RESPONSE-RESPONSE COMPATIBILITY DURING TASK SWITCHING [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2006, 4(1): 18-21.