Temporal Distinctiveness in Task Switching: Assessing the Mixture-Distribution Assumption

被引:8
|
作者
Grange, James A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Keele Univ, Sch Psychol, Keele ST5 5BG, Staffs, England
来源
FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY | 2016年 / 7卷
关键词
task switching; decay; interference; computational model; MODEL; INTERFERENCE; ATTENTION; BENEFITS; MEMORY; DECAY;
D O I
10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00251
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
In task switching, increasing the response-cue interval has been shown to reduce the switch cost. This has been attributed to a time-based decay process influencing the activation of memory representations of tasks (task-sets). Recently, an alternative account based on interference rather than decay has been successfully applied to this data (Horoufchin et al., 2011a). In this account, variation of the RCI is thought to influence the temporal distinctiveness (TD) of episodic traces in memory, thus affecting their retrieval probability. This can affect performance as retrieval probability influences response time: If retrieval succeeds, responding is fast due to positive priming; if retrieval fails, responding is slow, due to having to perform the task via a slow algorithmic process. This account and a recent formal model (Orange and Cross, 2010 makes the strong prediction that all RTs are a mixture of one of two processes: a fast process when retrieval succeeds, and a slow process when retrieval fails. The present paper assesses the evidence for this mixture-distribution assumption in TD data. In a first section, statistical evidence for mixture-distributions is found using the fixed-point property test. In a second section, a mathematical process model with mixture-distributions at its core is fitted to the response time distribution data. Both approaches provide good evidence in support of the mixture-distribution assumption, and thus support temporal distinctiveness accounts of the data.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A mixture-distribution factor model for multivariate outliers
    Georgiev, Iliyan
    [J]. ECONOMETRICS JOURNAL, 2007, 10 (03): : 605 - 636
  • [2] The Dissipating Task-Repetition Benefit in Cued Task Switching: Task-Set Decay or Temporal Distinctiveness?
    Horoufchin, Himeh
    Philipp, Andrea M.
    Koch, Iring
    [J]. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-HUMAN PERCEPTION AND PERFORMANCE, 2011, 37 (02) : 455 - 472
  • [3] Assessing violations of the equal environments assumption with a finite mixture distribution model
    Mitchell, Karen S.
    Mazzeo, Suzanne E.
    Schmitt, J. Eric
    Bulik, Cynthia M.
    Neale, Michael C.
    [J]. BEHAVIOR GENETICS, 2007, 37 (06) : 777 - 777
  • [4] Can time-based decay explain temporal distinctiveness effects in task switching?
    Grange, James A.
    Cross, Ellen
    [J]. QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2015, 68 (01): : 19 - 45
  • [5] The personal structure of personal need for structure - A mixture-distribution Rasch analysis
    Meiser, Thorsten
    Machunsky, Maya
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT, 2008, 24 (01) : 27 - 34
  • [6] ASSESSING THE INVERSE GAUSSIAN DISTRIBUTION ASSUMPTION
    EDGEMAN, RL
    [J]. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON RELIABILITY, 1990, 39 (03) : 352 - 355
  • [7] Temporal distinctiveness and repetition benefits in task switching: Disentangling stimulus-related and response-related contributions
    Horoufchin, Himeh
    Philipp, Andrea M.
    Koch, Iring
    [J]. QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2011, 64 (03): : 434 - 446
  • [8] Modelling response selection in task switching: Testing the contingent encoding assumption
    Schneider, Darryl W.
    Logan, Gordon D.
    [J]. QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2014, 67 (06): : 1074 - 1095
  • [9] On the difficulty of task switching: Assessing the role of task-set inhibition
    Mei-Ching Lien
    Eric Ruthruff
    Dacid Kuhns
    [J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2006, 13 : 530 - 535
  • [10] On the difficulty of task switching: Assessing the role of task-set inhibition
    Lien, Mei-Ching
    Ruthruff, Eric
    Kuhns, David
    [J]. PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW, 2006, 13 (03) : 530 - 535