Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Comparing switch costs: alternating runs and explicit cuing.

Erik M Altmann1

  • 1Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. ema@msu.edu

Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition
|May 2, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Explaining the Validity of the ASVAB for Job-Relevant Multitasking Performance: The Role of Placekeeping Ability.

Journal of Intelligence·2023
Same author

Task independence of placekeeping as a cognitive control construct: Evidence from individual differences and experimental effects.

Cognition·2022
Same author

Slow-wave sleep during a brief nap is related to reduced cognitive deficits during sleep deprivation.

Sleep·2021
Same author

Caffeine selectively mitigates cognitive deficits caused by sleep deprivation.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2021
Same author

Incremental validity of placekeeping as a predictor of multitasking.

Psychological research·2020
Same author

Effects of total sleep deprivation on procedural placekeeping: More than just lapses of attention.

Journal of experimental psychology. General·2019
Same journal

Testing the predictions of a distinctiveness model of memory: The production effect in backward recall.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2026
Same journal

On the impact of adjacency on transposed-word effects under serial presentation.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2026
Same journal

It's time to opt out: Metacognitive analysis of time regulation under uncertainty.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2026
Same journal

The role of statistical learning in attentional guidance during search through naturalistic scenes.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2026
Same journal

Representing objects and features in long-term memory: A case for direct feature-feature binding.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2026
Same journal

Crossmodal correspondences influence adaptation during rule-based category learning of objects.

Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition·2026
See all related articles

This study highlights the conflation of task-switching cost measures. Alternating-runs switch cost (ARS) includes task-switching costs and first-trial costs, unlike explicit-cuing switch cost (ECS).

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Neuroscience
  • Human Behavior

Background:

  • The predominant behavioral measure in task-switching literature is switch cost.
  • Operational definitions of switch cost are often conflated, leading to measurement issues.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To differentiate between two common definitions of switch cost: alternating-runs switch cost (ARS) and explicit-cuing switch cost (ECS).
  • To investigate the implications of conflating these measures in task-switching research.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of existing task-switching literature and data.
  • Presentation of new data to illustrate the differences between ARS and ECS.
  • Survey of data for evidence of ARS being larger than ECS.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Alternating-runs switch cost (ARS) appears to encompass both task-switching costs and switch-independent costs from the first trial of a run.
  • The alternating-runs procedure does not allow for the separation of these distinct cost components.
  • Evidence suggests ARS is generally larger than explicit-cuing switch cost (ECS).

Conclusions:

  • Conflating ARS and ECS can lead to inaccurate interpretations of task-switching costs.
  • The distinction between ARS and ECS is crucial for a precise understanding of cognitive control and task switching.
  • Future research should employ methods that clearly separate these different cost components.