{"title":"不依赖刺激顺序控制反应顺序--任务顺序灵活表征的证据","authors":"Jens Kürten, Tilo Strobach, Lynn Huestegge","doi":"10.1007/s00426-024-01953-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In dual-task situations, both component tasks are typically not executed simultaneously but rather one after another. Task order is usually determined based on bottom-up information provided by stimulus presentation order, but also affected by top-down factors such as instructions and/or differentially dominant component tasks (e.g., oculomotor task prioritization). Recent research demonstrated that in the context of a randomly switching stimulus order, task order representations can be integrated with specific component task information rather than being coded in a purely abstract fashion (i.e., by containing only generic order information). This conclusion was derived from observing consistently smaller task-order switch costs for a preferred (e.g., oculomotor-manual) versus a non-preferred (e.g., manual-oculomotor) task order (i.e., order-switch cost asymmetries). Since such a representational format might have been especially promoted by the sequential stimulus presentation employed, we investigated task-order representations in situations without any bottom-up influence of stimulus order. To this end, we presented task stimuli simultaneously and cued the required task-order in advance. Experiment 1 employed abstract order transition cues that only indicated a task-order repetition (vs. switch) relative to the previous trial, while Experiment 2 used explicit cues that unambiguously indicated the task-order. Experiment 1 revealed significant task-order switch costs <i>only</i> for the second task (of either task order) and no order-switch cost asymmetries, indicating a rather generic representation of task order. Experiment 2 revealed task-order switch costs in <i>both</i> component tasks with a trend toward order-switch cost asymmetries, indicating an integration of task order representations with component task information. These findings highlight an astonishing flexibility of mental task-order representations during task-order control.</p>","PeriodicalId":501681,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Research","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Controlling response order without relying on stimulus order – evidence for flexible representations of task order\",\"authors\":\"Jens Kürten, Tilo Strobach, Lynn Huestegge\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00426-024-01953-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In dual-task situations, both component tasks are typically not executed simultaneously but rather one after another. Task order is usually determined based on bottom-up information provided by stimulus presentation order, but also affected by top-down factors such as instructions and/or differentially dominant component tasks (e.g., oculomotor task prioritization). Recent research demonstrated that in the context of a randomly switching stimulus order, task order representations can be integrated with specific component task information rather than being coded in a purely abstract fashion (i.e., by containing only generic order information). This conclusion was derived from observing consistently smaller task-order switch costs for a preferred (e.g., oculomotor-manual) versus a non-preferred (e.g., manual-oculomotor) task order (i.e., order-switch cost asymmetries). Since such a representational format might have been especially promoted by the sequential stimulus presentation employed, we investigated task-order representations in situations without any bottom-up influence of stimulus order. To this end, we presented task stimuli simultaneously and cued the required task-order in advance. Experiment 1 employed abstract order transition cues that only indicated a task-order repetition (vs. switch) relative to the previous trial, while Experiment 2 used explicit cues that unambiguously indicated the task-order. Experiment 1 revealed significant task-order switch costs <i>only</i> for the second task (of either task order) and no order-switch cost asymmetries, indicating a rather generic representation of task order. Experiment 2 revealed task-order switch costs in <i>both</i> component tasks with a trend toward order-switch cost asymmetries, indicating an integration of task order representations with component task information. These findings highlight an astonishing flexibility of mental task-order representations during task-order control.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501681,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Research\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01953-w\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-01953-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Controlling response order without relying on stimulus order – evidence for flexible representations of task order
In dual-task situations, both component tasks are typically not executed simultaneously but rather one after another. Task order is usually determined based on bottom-up information provided by stimulus presentation order, but also affected by top-down factors such as instructions and/or differentially dominant component tasks (e.g., oculomotor task prioritization). Recent research demonstrated that in the context of a randomly switching stimulus order, task order representations can be integrated with specific component task information rather than being coded in a purely abstract fashion (i.e., by containing only generic order information). This conclusion was derived from observing consistently smaller task-order switch costs for a preferred (e.g., oculomotor-manual) versus a non-preferred (e.g., manual-oculomotor) task order (i.e., order-switch cost asymmetries). Since such a representational format might have been especially promoted by the sequential stimulus presentation employed, we investigated task-order representations in situations without any bottom-up influence of stimulus order. To this end, we presented task stimuli simultaneously and cued the required task-order in advance. Experiment 1 employed abstract order transition cues that only indicated a task-order repetition (vs. switch) relative to the previous trial, while Experiment 2 used explicit cues that unambiguously indicated the task-order. Experiment 1 revealed significant task-order switch costs only for the second task (of either task order) and no order-switch cost asymmetries, indicating a rather generic representation of task order. Experiment 2 revealed task-order switch costs in both component tasks with a trend toward order-switch cost asymmetries, indicating an integration of task order representations with component task information. These findings highlight an astonishing flexibility of mental task-order representations during task-order control.