ArticleJournal of cognition2020
An Episodic Model of Task Switching Effects: Erasing the Homunculus from Memory.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive flexibility versus stability via activation-based and weight-based adaptations.Communications psychology · 2026Article
- Bindings for Action: Bridging the Gap Between Theories of Procedural Working Memory and Action Control Research.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- The effect of preparation on binding between spatial and non-spatial features of voices in a multitalker setting.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Does preparation generate the cost of task switching? A recipe for a switch cost after cue-only trials.Psychological research · 2025Article
- Exploring the ERP trace of task-set control in the composite design task-switching paradigm.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Article
- Cognitive control and meta-control in dual-task coordination.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Review
- Binding of response-independent task rules.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2024Article
- Repetition costs in task switching are not equal to cue switching costs: evidence from a cue-independent context.Psychological research · 2024Article
- The Curve of Learning With and Without Instructions.Journal of cognition · 2024Article
- Do Task Sets Compete in the Stroop Task and Other Selective Attention Paradigms?Journal of cognition · 2023Article
- Linking computational models of two core tasks of cognitive control.Psychological review · 2023Article
- N-2 Repetition Costs in Task Switching: Task Inhibition or Interference Between Task Episodes?Journal of cognition · 2022Article
- Automatic effects of covert practice.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2021Article
- Goal-Based Binding of Irrelevant Stimulus Features for Action Slips.Experimental psychology · 2021Article
- Erasing the Homunculus as an Ongoing Mission: A Reply to the Commentaries.Journal of cognition · 2020Article
- PEP Does Not Dispense with but Implements Task-Set Reconfiguration. Can It Handle Phenomena More Diagnostic of Endogenous Control?Journal of cognition · 2020Article
- A Small Platoon of Idiots Have Been Allowed to Flourish, but the Homunculus Has Not Been Erased from Memory.Journal of cognition · 2020Article
- Item-Specificity and Intention in Episodic Memory.Journal of cognition · 2020Article
- Simple Control.Journal of cognition · 2020Article
- Has "Erasing" Made Things Clearer? Commentary on Schmidt, Liefooghe & De Houwer (): "An Episodic Model of Task Switching Effects: Erasing the Homunculus from Memory".Journal of cognition · 2020Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Parallel Episodic Processing (PEP) model is a neural network for simulating human performance in speeded response time tasks. It learns with an exemplar-based memory store and it is capable of modelling findings from various subdomains of cognition. In this paper, we show how the PEP model can be designed to follow instructions (e.g., task rules and goals). The extended PEP model is then used to simulate a number of key findings from the task switching domain. These include the switch cost, task-rule congruency effects, response repetition asymmetries, cue repetition benefits, and the full pattern of means from a recent feature integration decomposition of cued task switching (Schmidt & Liefooghe, 2016). We demonstrate that the PEP model fits the participant data well, that the model does not possess the flexibility to match any pattern of results, and that a number of competing task switching models fail to account for key observations that the PEP model produces naturally. Given the parsimony and unique explanatory power of the episodic account presented here, our results suggest that feature-integration biases have a far greater power in explaining task-switching performance than previously assumed.
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.