| 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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
