ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2016
Dynamics of task-set carry-over: evidence from eye-movement analyses.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preparatory Switches of Auditory Spatial and Non-Spatial Attention Among Simultaneous Voices.Journal of cognition · 2025Article
- Does preparation help to switch auditory attention between simultaneous voices: Effects of switch probability and prevalence of conflict.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2024Article
- How Task Set and Task Switching Modulate Perceptual Processes: Is Recognition of Facial Emotion an Exception?Journal of cognition · 2021Article
- EEG Decoding Reveals the Strength and Temporal Dynamics of Goal-Relevant Representations.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Is conflict adaptation due to active regulation or passive carry-over? Evidence from eye movements.Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Trial-to-trial carry-over of task sets (i.e., task-set inertia) is often considered as a primary reason for task-switch costs. Yet, we know little about the dynamics of such carry-over effects, in particular how much they are driven by the most recent trial rather than characterized by a more continuous memory gradient. Using eye-tracking, we examined in a 3-task, switching paradigm whether there is a greater probability of non-target fixations to stimuli associated with the previously relevant attentional set than to those associated with the less-recent set. Indeed, we found strong evidence for more interference (expressed in terms of non-target fixations) from recent than from less-recent tasks and that in particular the interference from pre-switch trials contributed substantially to the overall pattern of response-time switch costs. Moreover, task-set carry-over was dominated by the most-recent trial when subjects could expect task repetitions (with a 33 % switch rate). In comparison, when tasks were selected randomly (with a 66 % switch rate), interference from the most recent trial decreased, whereas interference from less-recent trials increased. In sum, carry-over interference dynamics were characterized both by a gradual recency gradient and expectations about task-transition probabilities. Beyond that, there was little evidence for a unique role of the most-recent trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.