09:00 - 10:30
Parallel sessions 4
09:00 - 10:30
Room: HSZ - N1
Chair/s:
Alexander Berger, Patricia Hirsch
Multitasking is a frequent part of everyday life, requiring us to switch between different tasks or engage in multiple tasks simultaneously. Such situations place high demands on cognitive control. A key aspect of this control is the regulation of task sets: internal representations that guide behavior in accordance with current task demands. Using task switching, probe task and dual-tasking methods, this symposium brings together different paradigms for investigating the flexible control of task sets, thereby integrating different perspectives on the preparation, inhibition, and adaptation of task sets. We present studies on how task sets are shaped by anticipatory processes, how they may be suppressed to reduce interference, and how control mechanisms flexibly adjust based on recent experience or contextual demands. The individual talks address a range of questions within this framework: one study investigates inhibitory processes triggered by mere task preparation; another explores how changes in cue-task mappings affect reconfiguration after practice. A third contribution examines the origins of asymmetries in task switching involving different perspectives. Extending the focus to situations involving overlapping task demands, further talks investigate the dissipation of dual-task representations and how sequential demands modulate control in dual-task settings. Together, the symposium provides an integrative perspective on the dynamic regulation of task sets and aims to advance our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms that support cognitive flexibility and efficient multitasking in complex environments.
Submission 109
Task Set Inhibition Following Mere Task Preparation Induced by Cue-Only Trials
SymposiumTalk-01
Presented by: Alexander Berger
Alexander BergerMarkus Kiefer
Department of Psychology, Ulm University, Germany
One mechanism considered to aid the switch between tasks is the inhibition of previous, no longer required task sets. Recently, n-2 repetition costs – a marker of such inhibitory processes – were observed following a cue-only trial, in which only the task cue, but no actual task was presented. This indicates that merely preparing for a task activates a task set, which is inhibited during the switch to a new task. In the present work, we investigate the influence of the cue duration (cue-target interval; CTI) on such inhibitory processes following cue-only trials (long CTI: 750ms; short CTI: 300ms). The CTI was previously shown to reduce switch costs, indicating that participants use longer cue durations for more in-depth task preparation. However, in the present work, whilst robust n-2 repetition costs following cue-only trials were observed, these costs were not significantly moderated by CTI. This suggests that different levels of task preparation result in a conflict between competing task sets, with inhibition as a mechanism to resolve this conflict.