ArticleJournal of cognition2021
How Task Set and Task Switching Modulate Perceptual Processes: Is Recognition of Facial Emotion an Exception?
Article in Journal of cognition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing cognitive load in Guzheng learning: a narrative review of demonstration, segmented practice, and feedback scaffolding.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Limitation of switching sensory information flow in flexible perceptual decision making.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Preparatory Switches of Auditory Spatial and Non-Spatial Attention Among Simultaneous Voices.Journal of cognition · 2025Article
- Morphine exposure modulates dimensional bias and set formation in anthropoids.Addiction biology · 2024Article
- Can we prevent social identity switches? An experimental-computational investigation.The British journal of social psychology · 2023Article
- Do Task Sets Compete in the Stroop Task and Other Selective Attention Paradigms?Journal of cognition · 2023Article
- The State-of-the-art of Research into Human Multitasking: An Editorial.Journal of cognition · 2021Article
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
In Part 1 we review task-switching and other studies showing that, even with time for preparation, participants' ability to shift attention to a relevant attribute or object before the stimulus onset is limited: there is a 'residual cost'. In particular, several brain potential markers of perceptual encoding are delayed on task-switch trials, compared to task-repeat trials that require attention to the same attribute as before. Such effects have been documented even for a process often considered 'automatic' - visual word recognition: ERP markers of word frequency and word/nonword status are (1) delayed when the word recognition task follows a judgement of a perceptual property compared to repeating the lexical task, and (2) strongly attenuated during the perceptual judgements. Thus, even lexical access seems influenced by the task/attentional set. In Part 2, we report in detail a demonstration of what seems to be a special case, where task-set and a task switch have no such effect on perceptual encoding. Participants saw an outline letter superimposed on a face expressing neutral or negative emotion, and were auditorily cued to categorise the letter as vowel/consonant, or the face as emotional/neutral. ERPs exhibited a robust emotional-neutral difference (Emotional Expression Effect) no smaller or later when switching to the face task than when repeating it; in the first half of its time-course it did not vary with the task at all. The initial encoding of the valence of a fixated facial emotional expression appears to be involuntary and invariant, whatever the endogenous task/attentional set.
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.