Reading focus
Syllabus: How Do We Direct Attention and Control Thought?
Bring the timing account to task changes. Separate preparing a new rule from interference, repeated cues, and retrieval of prior task configurations.
A question to consider. An advance cue reduces a switch cost but does not eliminate it. Give two explanations for the remaining cost and a comparison that would distinguish them.
Why this reading
Changing tasks often slows responding, but that difference does not explain itself. Monsell compares preparation, interference from a prior task, and retrieval of task rules as contributors to switching performance.
Before you read
A task-set configures what information matters and which response rule applies. A switch cost compares switching with repeating a task. A mixing cost compares repeating a task in a mixed-task block with performing it in a single-task block. Reaction time and errors provide complementary evidence.
Read for
- Distinguish the preparation effect, residual switch cost, and mixing cost instead of treating them as one measurement.
- Compare reconfiguration accounts with carry-over and retrieval accounts, including the role of a cue changing when a task changes.
- Examine why activation associated with switching does not automatically distinguish the source of control from the processes being controlled.
Consider afterwards
- Someone responds faster when the same task repeats. How could a design using two different cues for each task separate benefits of repeating the cue from benefits of repeating the task?
Editorial context
This review organizes an influential experimental tradition and its competing explanations. It is not a current exhaustive review or a direct estimate of everyday multitasking costs. Preparation can reduce measured costs without identifying a single switching mechanism. Differences between people need reliable measurement and a clear account of what the task contrast contains.