Automatic and intentional activation of task sets

Four experiments examined automatic and intentional activation of task sets in a switching paradigm. Experiment 1 demonstrated incidental task sequence learning that was not accompanied by verbalizable task sequence knowledge. This learning did not affect task shift cost and may be attributed to automatic task-set activation. In Experiment 2, both shift cost and learning effect increased when the response-cue interval was short, indicating the influence of residual, persisting activation of the preceding task set. In Experiment 3, learning disappeared with a long cue-stimulus interval (CSI), which resulted in a strong preparation effect. This preparation, however, reduced reaction time level but was not specific to task shifts. Finally, Experiment 4 showed that a within-subject C