Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

Task switching is not cue switching.

Erik M Altmann¹

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

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

|May 9, 2007

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

Mind wandering during first- and foreign-language reading.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026

Same journal

Lexical word processing is unaffected by rapid invisible frequency tagging in reading: Evidence from eye movements.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026

Same journal

Anxiety modulates voluntary attentional orienting to emotional gaze cues: Eye movements for pro- and anti-saccades.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026

Same journal

Faster key-press responses to front vowels than back vowels when matching heard vowels with represented vowels.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026

Same journal

Testing the interleaving effect without response bias: A forced-choice reevaluation of Kornell and Bjork (2008).

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026

Same journal

The impact of social interaction on abstract concepts.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026

See all related articles

Task switching does not simply reduce to switching cues, as recent research suggests. This study found that cue switching does not fully explain task switching variance or generalize well to new procedures.

Area of Science:

Cognitive psychology
Neuroscience

Background:

Recent studies propose task switching simplifies to cue switching.
This reductionist view aims to lessen cognitive control demands.

Purpose of the Study:

To investigate if task switching can be fully explained by cue switching.
To assess the generalizability of the cue switching hypothesis.
To determine if the cue switching procedure preserves task-switch costs.

Main Methods:

The study examined the relationship between cue switching and task switching.
Experimental procedures were varied to test generalizability.
Task-switch costs were measured under different conditions.

Main Results:

Related Experiment Videos

Cue switching did not account for all task switching variance.

The cue switching hypothesis showed limited generalizability.

The procedure did not adequately preserve task-switch costs.

Conclusions:

Task switching is more complex than just cue switching.
The reduction hypothesis is not fully supported by the findings.
Cognitive control in task switching requires further investigation beyond cue-based mechanisms.