ArticleJournal of cognition2026
Repeating Task-Irrelevant Contexts Does Not Bias Task Choice and Performance in Voluntary Task Switching.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Goal-directed behaviour requires both efficient task execution as well as adequate task choice. Task choice may reflect deliberate evaluation of costs and benefits, but it may also be biased by bottom-up memory retrieval. Specifically, re-encountering a previously experienced context could retrieve a prior task choice, thereby influencing subsequent decisions. In the present study, using the voluntary task-switching (VTS) paradigm, we examined whether repeating a context would retrieve a task by manipulating whether a task-irrelevant context stimulus repeated or changed across consecutive trials. Based on a feature binding and episodic retrieval framework, we hypothesized that the context-albeit task irrelevant-could become bound with the task in each trial. Consequently, repeating the context would retrieve or reactivate the previous-trial task. Therefore, we predicted that context repetitions would increase task-repetition rates and task-repetition benefits. We used an adaptive VTS procedure (Mittelstädt, Miller, & Kiesel, 2018), wherein the onset of the stimulus affording a task repetition is delayed compared to the stimulus affording a task switch. The delay between the stimuli increases for every consecutive task repetition. We included a task-irrelevant context (a coloured box in Experiments 1 and 2, or a picture in Experiment 3) that could switch or repeat unpredictably in each trial. Contrary to the predictions, we found no evidence that repeating a task-irrelevant context affected either task choice or performance, even when context saliency was enhanced in Experiment 3. We discuss these findings in light of the interplay of performance optimization and task-set availability in VTS.
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.