Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38627358›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2024

Learned switch readiness via concurrent activation of task sets: Evidence from task specificity and memory load.

Corey A Nack, Chiu Yu-Chin

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Corey A NackDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA. cnack@purdue.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-0565-624X
Chiu Yu-ChinDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6768-509X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cognitive flexibility increases when switch demands increase. In task switching experiments, repeated pairing of flexibility-demanding situations with specific contexts leads subjects to become more prepared to adapt to changing task demands in those contexts. One form of such upregulated cognitive flexibility has been demonstrated with a list-wide switch probability (LWSP) effect, where switch costs are smaller in lists with frequent switches than in lists with rare switches. According to a recent proposal, the LWSP effect is supported by a concurrent activation mechanism whereby both task rules are kept available simultaneously in working memory. We conducted four experiments to test two key features in this concurrent activation account of LWSP effects. First, we asked whether the LWSP effects are limited to only the trained tasks, and second, we asked whether concurrent working memory load would reduce the LWSP effects. In Experiment 1, we replicated and extended previous findings that the LWSP manipulation modulates both performance (switch costs) and voluntary switch rates, indicating that context-driven increases in flexibility are generalizable so long as the task-sets remain the same. Results of Experiments 2 and 3 showed that novel tasks do not benefit from the concurrent activation of the two other tasks, suggesting that the LWSP effect is task specific. Experiment 4 showed that holding additional information in working memory reduces the LWSP effect. While these findings support the hypothesis of concurrent activation underlying the increased flexibility in the LWSP effect, caveats remain; additional research is needed to further test this account.

Indexed as

Executive FunctionMemory, Short-TermAdultFemaleHumansMalePsychomotor PerformanceYoung AdultAssociative learningCognitive flexibilityContext controlMetacontrolSwitch probability effects

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.